What is required as a burden of proof for administrative proceedings?

In administrative proceedings, the standard of proof is typically characterized as "clear and convincing evidence." This standard requires that the evidence presented must be highly and substantially more likely to be true than not, providing a greater degree of certainty than the preponderance of the evidence standard used in civil cases, but not as strict as beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases.

The reasoning behind requiring clear and convincing evidence in administrative contexts often relates to the nature of the rights at stake, where decisions can significantly impact individuals' livelihoods or licenses. This standard of proof serves to protect the interest of individuals while fostering fair administrative processes.

While preponderance of the evidence is commonly used in civil cases and requires that the evidence shows that something is more likely true than false, it does not provide the same level of assurance as clear and convincing evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for criminal proceedings and reflects a much higher threshold. No proof is needed is incorrect, as all administrative proceedings require some form of substantiation of claims for a decision to be made.