[The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA

Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 UTC 2025

Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other?

I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license.

But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and
license information I have written the word Lacanalysis.  I don't document
like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork.

I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as
here people can easily find us.

Is this illegal or unethical in some way?
It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons.

Aviva

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16 PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst <
the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:

> Kristopher,
>
> This has been my understanding for as well.
>
> john
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via
> The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
>
> Greetings everyone,
>
> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this
> update while recommending caution due to the following existing
> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this
> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current
> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis."
> -Kristopher
>
> **********************
> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed
> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state
> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent
> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP
> to better protect the public. [1
> <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
> 2
> <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
> 3
> <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>,
> 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>]
>
> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology
>
>    - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis"
>    under its definition of the "practice of psychology".
>    - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a
>    psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed
>    psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1
>    <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
>    5
>    <https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)>
>    ]
>
> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception
>
>    - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst"
>    license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain
>    graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited
>    basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research".
>    - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third
>    of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be
>    engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2
>    <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
>    6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 7
>    <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/>,
>    8
>    <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.>
>    ]
>
> The 2025 regulatory transfer
>
>    - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research
>    Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California
>    to the California Board of Psychology.
>    - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024–2028 strategic plan outlines the
>    addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move
>    is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of
>    a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better
>    public protection. [3
>    <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>,
>    4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>, 9
>    <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf>]
>
> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme
> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal
> challenges from psychoanalysts.
>
>    - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of
>    Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal
>    court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and
>    Fourteenth Amendments.
>    - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health
>    professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health
>    and safety. [6
>    <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 10
>    <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm>, 11
>    <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 12
>    <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf>
>    ]
>
> [1]
> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/
> [2]
> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/
> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/
> <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>
> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml
> [5]
> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm
> [7]
> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/
> [8]
> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.>
> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf
> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm
> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm
> [12]
> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf
>
> *********************************************
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42 AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <
> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau
>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague
>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great
>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the
>> USA.
>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the
>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can
>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put
>> a placard saying so in front of their office.
>>
>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be
>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood
>> by psychoanalysts in the US.
>>
>> Tell us
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> --
>> The-lacanalyst mailing list
>> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
>> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
>>
>
> --
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
>
> --
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20250928/ffda36e9/attachment-0006.htm>