Administrative hearings for TABC violations operate under fundamentally different rules and procedures than criminal proceedings, requiring specialized strategies that account for the unique challenges and opportunities each venue presents. The burden of proof in administrative hearings typically follows a preponderance of evidence standard rather than the beyond reasonable doubt requirement in criminal cases, meaning TABC need only show it’s more likely than not that violations occurred. Administrative law judges who preside over TABC hearings possess specialized knowledge of alcoholic beverage regulations but may also have ongoing relationships with TABC prosecutors, creating dynamics different from criminal court judges who rotate through various case types. The rules of evidence in administrative proceedings are considerably more relaxed, allowing hearsay testimony and documentation that would be inadmissible in criminal court, which can work both for and against the establishment’s interests. Discovery rights in administrative cases are often limited compared to criminal proceedings, restricting access to TABC’s evidence and witness information until closer to the hearing date, requiring adaptive defense strategies. The timeline for administrative hearings typically moves faster than criminal cases, with hearings scheduled within months rather than the years criminal cases might take, demanding immediate and intensive preparation. Settlement negotiations in administrative matters often prove more fruitful than in criminal cases, as TABC may prefer agreed penalties that ensure compliance over protracted hearings with uncertain outcomes. The absence of jury trials in administrative proceedings means persuading a single hearing officer who may have preconceived notions about certain violation types or establishment categories. Penalty options in administrative hearings focus on license-related sanctions such as suspensions, probation terms, or revocation rather than the jail time and criminal records that accompany criminal convictions. The appellate process for administrative decisions follows different pathways than criminal appeals, often requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before accessing judicial review with its associated costs and delays. Representation requirements differ, as non-attorney representatives may appear in some administrative proceedings while criminal cases demand licensed attorney representation for most critical stages. The public nature of criminal proceedings contrasts with administrative hearings that may have limited public access, affecting reputation management strategies and media coverage. Evidence preservation requirements vary between venues, with administrative proceedings sometimes allowing electronic testimony and remote witness participation not permitted in criminal courts. The collateral consequences of administrative findings versus criminal convictions create different long-term impacts on licensing, insurance, and business operations. Through understanding these crucial differences, establishments and their counsel can tailor defense strategies to maximize success potential in each venue while coordinating approaches when facing parallel proceedings.