The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore – Cannabis Lawyer San Francisco
Schedule a Consultation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COUNSEL FOR CALIFORNIA CANNABIS AND HEMP BUSINESSES

California’s cannabis and hemp industries are administered by a network of state and local agencies whose decisions — on licensing, compliance, enforcement, and rulemaking — can determine whether a business survives. The DCC, CDFA, CDPH, and dozens of local licensing authorities exercise sweeping administrative authority, with the power to issue fines, impose conditions, suspend licenses, and initiate revocation proceedings that can permanently close a company. The firm provides administrative law counsel to cannabis and hemp operators facing agency scrutiny, enforcement actions, and rulemaking processes that require a lawyer with deep knowledge of both California administrative law and the cannabis regulatory system.

Schedule a Consultation

Recognized By

global top 200 cannabis logo

Global Top 200 Cannabis Lawyer

Cannabis Law Journal

California's Cannabis Administrative Law Framework

California administrative law encompasses the regulations, guidance documents, administrative decisions, and executive orders issued under the Administrative Procedure Act. For cannabis and hemp businesses, the two most important agencies are the DCC — which regulates cannabis operators under MAUCRSA — and the CDFA, which administers California’s Industrial Hemp Program under the State Regulatory Plan approved by the United States Department of Agriculture.

The DCC’s enforcement authority is broad. The department proposes and adopts regulations through formal rulemaking, issues informal guidance through bulletins and FAQs, and conducts administrative hearings to enforce cannabis legislation and impose disciplinary action. Grounds for enforcement include: operating without a valid license; track-and-trace failures; packaging and labeling violations; off-premises activity; diversion; failure to pay required fees; and financial-interest-holder non-disclosure, among others. The Unified Cannabis Enforcement Task Force has demonstrated the aggressive pace of current state-level enforcement.

For hemp operators, CDFA administers a pre-harvest sampling and testing program requiring all registered cultivators to submit to testing within 30 days of anticipated harvest. Test results showing delta-9 THC above the 0.3% threshold constitute a negligent violation on first occurrence and can produce registration revocation and criminal referral for repeated violations. CDPH’s DPH-24-005 emergency regulations have also produced a new wave of enforcement against hemp retailers, manufacturers, and distributors.

DCC Administrative Proceedings — What Operators Need to Know

When an adverse administrative proceeding is initiated against a cannabis licensee, the stakes are high and the procedural timeline is unforgiving. A notice of violation or statement of issues triggers a formal process governed by the California APA, with specific deadlines for requesting a hearing, submitting responsive pleadings, and engaging in pre-hearing discovery. Missing those deadlines can produce a default decision against the operator.

Administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings are formal quasi-judicial proceedings: both sides present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and submit briefs to an administrative law judge, whose proposed decision is then adopted or modified by the DCC Director. Effective representation requires not just knowledge of California administrative procedure but deep familiarity with DCC regulatory standards, compliance expectations, and enforcement priorities — the kind of knowledge that comes from regular engagement with the agency.

Many administrative matters can be resolved before the hearing stage through negotiated stipulations, corrective action plans, or settlement agreements that reduce or restructure the proposed sanction. Identifying which matters are candidates for negotiated resolution — and which require formal hearing — is one of the central judgments of an administrative law practice.

How Shay Aaron Gilmore Helps

The firm represents cannabis and hemp operators across the spectrum of administrative proceedings: responding to notices of violation, defending accusations, participating in formal hearings, negotiating stipulated settlements, and engaging in rulemaking and comment proceedings. The firm also represents operators in administrative appeals of local cannabis decisions — conditional use permit denials, local license suspensions, and zoning enforcement actions.

Administrative law services include:

  • DCC notice of violation response
  • Accusation defense and statement-of-issues response
  • Administrative hearing representation
  • Stipulated settlement negotiation
  • License revocation and denial defense
  • Local cannabis administrative appeals
  • CDFA hemp registration proceedings
  • CDPH hemp consumable enforcement defense
  • Rulemaking participation and formal comment drafting
  • Writ of mandate proceedings (in coordination with litigation counsel)

Frequently Asked Questions

Calendar the response deadline immediately. Do not respond substantively until the underlying allegations have been evaluated against the regulation, the record, and the operator’s compliance history. Many NOVs can be reduced, restructured, or resolved without escalation when responded to substantively.
Usually yes, unless the agency has obtained an interim suspension order. Continuing operations does not waive any defenses — but how the operator behaves during the pendency of the matter is often itself a factor in resolution.
From notice of violation through final administrative decision, several months to a year is common. Negotiated resolutions can move materially faster.
Yes. Final administrative decisions can be challenged in superior court via writ of mandate. The strength of the underlying administrative record largely determines the prospects of appellate review — which is why the hearing stage matters even when settlement seems likely.
They can. Disciplinary history is a factor in renewal decisions, which is why even modest enforcement matters are worth defending or restructuring rather than absorbing.

Related Articles

Recent and Expected California Cannabis & Hemp Rulemaking to Govern the Licensed Supply Chains for Years to Come

Shay Gilmore May 13, 2026

California cannabis and hemp operators face five active or anticipated rulemakings in 2026 — covering multipack cannabis goods, pesticide residue testing, cultivation requirements, METRC track-and-trace reform, and AB 8 implementation. California cannabis attorney Shay Aaron Gilmore breaks down each DCC rulemaking proceeding, the AB 8 two-year countdown to hemp-DCC licensing integration, and why administrative law counsel delivers its highest value before any enforcement action begins.

California’s 2026 Cannabis Bills: All Active, All in the Assembly, and a Critical Deadline Approaching

Shay Gilmore May 4, 2026

Every active 2026 California cannabis bill affecting licensed dispensaries and retailers — including AB 2532’s beverage overhaul — is now sitting in the Assembly Appropriations Committee with a hard May 15 deadline. California cannabis attorney Shay Aaron Gilmore breaks down all of the bills, their current status, who’s sponsoring them, and what operators need to do before the window closes. Read the full legislative update at shaygilmorelaw.com.

View All Blog Posts

Expertise with Cannabis and Hemp Administrators

Administrative action from state and local authorities can threaten licenses, assets, and even personal liberty. The firm represents cannabis and hemp stakeholders in investigations, enforcement actions, and administrative proceedings before the Department of Cannabis Control and California cities and counties.

Matters have included defending landlords facing seven‑figure municipal penalty assessments for alleged unpermitted commercial cannabis activity; negotiating remediation plans and revised use structures to avoid criminal exposure; and guiding owners through ownership‑transfer reviews triggered by changes in control or capital structure. The practice also handles hearings and appeals connected to license conditions, fines, and local enforcement orders, often in parallel with corporate restructurings or transactions.

When regulators reinterpret existing rules mid‑stream, the firm works directly with agency staff and counsel to reconcile deal structures with regulatory expectations, preserving transactions that might otherwise be blocked or unwound.

The heavily regulated cannabis space brings challenges every day, not just from changing laws and rules but also from changing gubernatorial and local government administrations. Whether you are launching a startup, or acquiring an established cannabis or hemp operation in California, regulators will scrutinize your business operations and transactions to ensure adherence to the letter and spirit of the cannabis laws and regulations in California. 

The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore provides each of our clients with the specialized legal knowledge and resources necessary to stay ahead of these rules and regulations, in partnership with the government agencies enforcing them. Some of the firm’s legal services include:

What Advice Do You Have for Cannabis Businesses in Dealing With Administrators?

From Shay’s interview for the Master’s series on ReelLawyers.com

For cannabis businesses dealing with regulators, I strongly advise working with a knowledgeable lawyer and ensuring that, as an operator, you have a robust compliance program in place. It’s also important to maintain good relationships with regulators by responding promptly and communicating openly.

One area that many operators in the cannabis and hemp space tend to overlook is strong recordkeeping practices. Good recordkeeping can speak volumes about your commitment to following both the letter and spirit of the regulations.

Related cannabis and hemp business services include: A complete list of Shay’s recent presentations, white papers, and legal articles is available on the Media page. Shay regularly publishes Administrative Law updates and insights on his Cannabis and Hemp Law Blog.

Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings: Cannabis vs. Industrial Hemp

Cannabis and industrial hemp operators in California face enforcement through entirely separate administrative systems — with different agencies, different penalty structures, and different hearing processes. For cannabis businesses, the Department of Cannabis Control can issue citations with administrative fines of up to $5,000 per violation for licensees and up to $30,000 per violation for unlicensed persons. Violations are classified as Minor, Moderate, or Serious, and Serious violations can result in license suspension or revocation. When the DCC issues a citation, the licensee has a right to request an informal conference under 4 CCR section 17803, but an informal conference does not start or extend the formal appeals clock. To formally contest a citation, license denial, disciplinary action, or emergency decision, the licensee must request an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings, where both sides present evidence and testimony in a proceeding that resembles a bench trial. The ALJ issues a proposed decision, but the DCC Director retains authority to adopt, reject, or modify that decision before it becomes final — meaning the agency, not the judge, has the last word at the administrative level.

Industrial hemp enforcement works differently at every level. Hemp is regulated by the CDFA and enforced on the ground by county agricultural commissioners. When a commissioner finds a negligent violation — such as failing to register before cultivating, failing to provide a legal description of cultivation land, or producing a crop that tests above the acceptable THC level — the commissioner issues a notice of violation and requires a corrective action plan under 3 CCR section 4951. The penalties are structured around crop destruction and registration consequences rather than monetary fines: a failed THC test means the crop cannot be harvested and must be destroyed within 45 days, and three negligent violations within five years triggers a five-year ban from hemp registration under Food and Agricultural Code section 81012. Hemp operators who want to contest a notice of violation must first request a hearing before the county agricultural commissioner within 30 days, and if that hearing is unsuccessful, may appeal to the CDFA Secretary’s Legal Office of Hearings and Appeals under 3 CCR section 4952 — a process entirely separate from the OAH proceedings that govern cannabis disputes. The firm represents cannabis and hemp operators at every stage of these distinct enforcement processes, from informal conferences and corrective action plans through formal hearings and agency-level appeals.r

Focused on Compliant Cannabis and Hemp Businesses

California administrative law refers to the law created by the California governor and California administrative agencies, including: regulations, guidance, administrative decisions, and executive orders and proclamations. By far the most important state regulators for the California cannabis and hemp markets are: the Department of Cannabis Control, which is the state regulator for cannabis in California, and its sister departments, the Department of Food and Agriculture (which regulates hemp cultivation and testing), and the Department of Public Health (which regulates hemp manufacturing and distribution).

The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) proposes and adopts regulations, issues guidance, and decides administrative hearings to enforce cannabis legislation or issue disciplinary action against an operator. When adverse to operators, these decisions can be reached on a number of grounds, including but not limited to:

  • Failure to comply with the provisions of any DCC regulation
  • Failure to comply with licensing conditions or operating procedures
  • Conduct that constitutes grounds for denial of licensure
  • Failure to comply with local ordinance regulating commercial cannabis activity

For hemp, the Department of Food and Agriculture administers the California Industrial Hemp Program under the California Industrial Hemp Law and Regulations, and the Department of Public Health regulates hemp manufacturing and distribution under AB 45 (2021) and its implementing regulations under Health & Safety Code Sections 111920 et seq. and Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, § 23010.  

Administrative law issues can be incredibly challenging for any cannabis business, sometimes beginning with an inquiry or investigation from a state or local regulator and then devolving into formal proceedings, invariably accompanied by large fines. The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore stays current with all proposed and enacted legislation and agency rulemaking relevant to the cannabis and hemp markets, proactively advising clients of their rights and the legal solutions that will allow them to move forward adhering to the letter and spirit of the law profitably.

Representative matters
  • Represented a commercial landlord in an administrative proceeding where a California city sought more than USD 1 million in penalties tied to alleged unpermitted cannabis activity, developing remedial measures and negotiating to forestall enforcement and criminal exposure.
  • Advised multiple buyers and sellers in ownership‑change transactions where the state regulator reassessed its interpretation of change‑of‑control regulations, engaging directly with the agency to secure approval for closings.

What Experience Do You Have Dealing With Cannabis and Hemp Administrators?

From Shay’s interview for the Master’s series on ReelLawyers.com

In my law practice, I routinely work with cannabis and hemp operators on administrative law matters, including enforcement actions, appeals, and negotiations with regulators. This work often involves helping clients navigate the complex web of state and local regulations to ensure compliance.

Appeals Beyond the Agency: CCAP, Writs of Mandate, and the Cannabis–Hemp Divergence When administrative hearings at the agency level are unsuccessful, cannabis and hemp operators follow divergent paths to judicial review — and understanding which path applies is critical to preserving appeal rights and meeting tight statutory deadlines. Cannabis licensees who receive an unfavorable final decision from the DCC Director can appeal to the Cannabis Control Appeals Panel, an independent five-member body (three Governor appointees, one Senate appointee, one Assembly appointee) that reviews the administrative record and can affirm, reverse, dismiss, or remand the DCC’s decision. Filing a notice of appeal with CCAP triggers an automatic stay of the DCC decision — meaning the enforcement action is paused while the appeal is pending — and CCAP must issue its decision within 90 days after the hearing concludes. If the CCAP outcome is still unfavorable, the licensee or the DCC can seek judicial review by filing with a California District Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court within 30 days of the CCAP decision. This multi-layered appeal structure — ALJ to DCC Director to CCAP to Court of Appeal — is unique to cannabis and does not exist for any other California licensing regime. Industrial hemp operators have no equivalent to CCAP. After exhausting the county agricultural commissioner hearing and the CDFA Secretary’s informal hearing under 3 CCR section 4952, the hearing officer’s decision is final and not further appealable within the agency. The hemp operator’s sole remaining remedy is to file a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, asking the court to review whether the agency exceeded its authority, followed proper procedure, and reached a decision supported by the evidence. For registration denials, suspensions, or revocations, the hearing is conducted as a formal proceeding under the California Administrative Procedure Act (Government Code section 11500 et seq.), with the CDFA bearing the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The firm advises cannabis and hemp clients on selecting the right appellate strategy at each stage — whether that means pursuing CCAP review, petitioning for a writ, or negotiating a resolution before an appeal becomes necessary — and ensures that statutory deadlines for each track are identified and preserved from the outset.

The provides Administrative Law services to cannabis and hemp operators and investors in:

Explore Our Administrative Law Services

The firm handles the full spectrum of cannabis and hemp administrative law matters — from the first agency inquiry through formal hearings, agency-level appeals, and Superior Court review. Select a practice area below to learn more.

DCC License Defense & Enforcement Actions

Defense against DCC citations, emergency suspensions, and license revocation proceedings.

Cannabis Administrative Hearings & Appeals

Representation before OAH Administrative Law Judges and on agency-level and court appeals.

Cannabis Regulatory Investigations

Counsel and representation from the first agency inquiry through formal investigation

Hemp Administrative Law & CDFA Enforcement

CDFA enforcement, county agricultural commissioner hearings, and hemp administrative appeals.

Defend the License Before the Hearing

The outcome of a DCC enforcement matter is shaped most by what happens in the first thirty days — the response to the notice, the documentation produced, and the posture the operator takes with the agency. A scoped consultation will identify the most defensible path forward.

Schedule a Free Consultation