19.1 Practice Standards and Professional Conduct
Key Takeaways
- Practice Standards is 6 of 90 Oregon Laws and Rules items; the entire Code of Professional Conduct is one rule, OAR 817-120-0005 (effective January 1, 2020).
- OAR 817-120-0005 requires authorization holders to adhere to ORS 676.560–676.660 and OAR Chapter 331 Divisions 1–30, and to practice in a manner that safeguards the public's health, safety, and welfare.
- The authorization holder — not the facility owner, client, or out-of-state custom — is responsible for determining whether any practice is prohibited by law (OAR 817-120-0005(3)).
- Services that are prohibited, unsafe, dangerous, or cause harm may be charged as incompetence, negligence, or unprofessional conduct under ORS 676.612(2)(j) (OAR 817-120-0005(4)).
- ORS 690.015(2) bans practice without active authorization, an unlicensed facility, outside-facility work without freelance, independent-contractor practice without authorization, advertising without authorization, a false application, unlicensed employees, and selling, bartering, or altering authorization documents.
The Oregon Laws and Rules Examination is 90 questions. Practice Standards is 6 of those 90, and Facility Operations is another 6. Together they are 12 items — more than Examinations (5) and almost as many as Licensing and Certification (9). This chapter is those two domains. The Board of Cosmetology put the entire Code of Professional Conduct in a single rule: OAR 817-120-0005. The matching statute is ORS 690.015, the prohibited-acts list. Miss a numbered duty or mix up a prohibition, and you spend one of the 12.
Four duties in OAR 817-120-0005 — memorize the order
OAR 817-120-0005 is Division 120. There is no second practice-standards rule to hunt. Four subsections, currently effective from the January 1, 2020 amendment:
(1) Authorization holders must adhere to all applicable Office laws and rules listed in ORS 676.560 to 676.660 and OAR Chapter 331, divisions 1 through 30.
That is the Health Licensing Office (HLO) umbrella, not only Board of Cosmetology Chapter 817. ORS 676.560–676.660 is the HLO enabling statute: issuance, investigation, discipline, civil penalties. OAR Chapter 331 Divisions 1–30 is HLO’s general administration — applications, identification, notification of changes (OAR 331-010-0040), investigations, and issuance and renewal (Division 30). A barber who knows Chapter 817 but ignores Chapter 331 still fails subsection (1).
(2) Authorization holders must practice in a manner that safeguards the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
The client in the chair is the public. A fade that ignores infection control, a shave on broken skin, or a house-call kit with no disinfectant is not “just a sanitation item.” It is also a practice-standards item. Subsection (2) is the purpose sentence the Board uses when a service was technically in-scope but unsafe.
(3) An authorization holder is responsible for determining if any practice would be prohibited by law.
This is the highest-yield sentence in the rule. The holder — not the facility owner, not the client, not a social-media trend, not a California license — decides whether the service is prohibited. “My booth-rental agreement said I could color” does not rewrite hair-design scope. “The client signed a waiver” does not legalize a prohibited service. “Everyone in the shop does it” does not transfer subsection (3). If the stem asks who is responsible for deciding whether a practice is prohibited, the answer is the authorization holder.
(4) Services provided to clients that are prohibited, unsafe, dangerous, or cause harm may result in a violation of incompetence, negligence, or unprofessional conduct pursuant to ORS 676.612(2)(j) and under Office rules.
ORS 676.612(2)(j) is HLO’s disciplinary ground for unprofessional conduct, negligence, incompetence, repeated violations, or any departure from or failure to conform to standards of practice. OAR 331-020-0070 unpacks two of those words: incompetence is conduct showing a lack of ability or fitness to perform the holder’s professional functions; negligence is conduct detrimental to the client. You do not need a separate “cosmetology malpractice” statute. A prohibited, unsafe, dangerous, or harmful service can be charged as (2)(j).
Statutory authority for 817-120-0005 is ORS 676.605, 676.615, and 690.165. The Board’s professional-conduct power in ORS 690.165(8) is how this one-rule Code of Professional Conduct exists.
ORS 690.015 — the prohibited-acts list
ORS 690.015 (2025 edition) establishes prohibitions for hair design, barbering, esthetics, nail technology, and natural hair care. The list is subject to the exemptions in ORS 690.025. A person who commits a prohibited act is subject to ORS 690.992 criminal penalties in addition to administrative action or civil penalty by HLO under ORS 676.612.
ORS 690.015(2) says a person may not:
(a) Perform or attempt to perform services in a field of practice without an active authorization. Attempt counts. A suspended, inactive, expired, or dormant card is not active. The first cut of the day after the certificate lapses is (2)(a), not a grace period.
(b) Operate a facility without a license or temporary facility permit. Regular or irregular does not matter — ORS 690.005(7) already taught that. A Saturday garage shop still needs facility paper.
(c) Perform or attempt to perform services outside a licensed facility or temporary facility unless the person holds a freelance license issued under ORS 690.123. A current barbering certificate does not legalize a paid hotel-room shave.
(d) Practice as an independent contractor without an authorization. Booth-renter slang is not registration. ORS 690.057 is the paper.
(e) Display a sign or in any way advertise or purport to offer services in a field of practice without first obtaining an authorization. The sandwich board, Instagram bio, and “mobile barber” flyer are (2)(e) if there is no matching authorization. Advertising is its own prohibition, not a lesser included of (2)(a).
(f) Knowingly make a false statement on an application to obtain or renew an authorization.
(g) Allow an individual in the employ or under the supervision or control of the person to perform in a field of practice without an authorization. This is the facility-holder and manager trap. Letting an uncertified friend “help with fades on Saturday” is (2)(g) for the person who employs, supervises, or controls that friend.
(h) Sell, barter, or offer to sell or barter a document evidencing an authorization.
(i) Purchase or procure by barter a document evidencing an authorization with intent to use it as evidence of the person’s qualification as a practitioner.
(j) Materially alter with fraudulent intent a document evidencing an authorization.
(k) Use or attempt to use a fraudulently obtained, counterfeited, or materially altered document evidencing an authorization.
(h) through (k) are the certificate-trafficking cluster. Selling a wall card, buying someone else’s certificate to post, changing an expiration date, or presenting a photocopy as the original with fraudulent intent are separate numbered bans, not one mushy “don’t fake a license.”
| ORS 690.015(2) | Prohibited act | Shop picture |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Practice without active authorization | Certificate lapsed yesterday; first client today |
| (b) | Facility with no license or temp permit | Saturday garage with a chair and a cash app |
| (c) | Outside a facility without freelance | Paid hotel-room shave on a practitioner certificate only |
| (d) | Independent contractor without authorization | Booth renter advertising as own business, no IC registration |
| (e) | Advertise without authorization | Instagram “mobile fades” with no freelance or facility paper |
| (f) | False statement on an application | Claiming an active out-of-state license that is suspended |
| (g) | Allow unlicensed employee / supervisee | Owner lets an uncertified cousin take paying clients |
| (h)–(k) | Sell, barter, alter, or use a fake/altered authorization | Posting a friend’s certificate or changing the expiration date |
Exemptions under ORS 690.025 still apply: unpaid emergency or domestic administration, licensed health professionals acting in scope, students under school supervision, and the other listed categories. A paid house-call fade is not domestic administration. Do not import an exemption the stem does not give.
A Medford chair that failed all four duties
Jorge holds an Oregon barbering certificate. The facility owner asks him to add a “scalp restoration” galvanic treatment the shop saw on social media, and to send the uncertified shampoo assistant out for a $40 house-call taper on Sunday. Jorge’s certificate does not make galvanic current barbering — ORS 690.005(2)(c) already banned it — and OAR 817-120-0005(3) makes Jorge responsible for determining that the service is prohibited. Performing it would be a prohibited, unsafe, or harmful service under subsection (4) and could be charged as incompetence, negligence, or unprofessional conduct under ORS 676.612(2)(j). Sending the uncertified assistant is ORS 690.015(2)(g) for whoever employs, supervises, or controls that person, and (2)(c) plus (2)(a) for the assistant who attempts the house call without freelance and without a certificate. Advertising the house-call taper on the shop’s page without freelance paper is (2)(e).
Subsection (2) — safeguard the public — is not a slogan. It is why the Board wrote one short Code of Professional Conduct and then pointed every unsafe service back to ORS 676.612(2)(j).
Under OAR 817-120-0005(3), who is responsible for determining whether a practice is prohibited by law?
OAR 817-120-0005(1) requires authorization holders to adhere to which body of law in addition to Board of Cosmetology Chapter 817?
Services that are prohibited, unsafe, dangerous, or cause harm may be charged as incompetence, negligence, or unprofessional conduct under which statute, according to OAR 817-120-0005(4)?