In Painless Parker v. Board of Dental Exam. (1932) 216 Cal. 285, a licensed dentist was found to have aided and abetted the unlicensed practice of dentistry by a corporation he formed to own and operate dental offices. ( Id. at pp. 289, 298.) The dentist argued, as Steinsmith does here, that the licensing requirements for the provision of professional services did not apply to "the purely business side of the practice." ( Id. at p. 295.) The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding: "The law does not assume to divide the practice of dentistry into such departments. Either one may extend into the domain of the other in respects that would make such a division impractical if not impossible. The subject is treated as a whole. If the contention of [the dentist] be sound, then the proprietor of the business may be guilty of gross misconduct in its management and violate all standards which a licensed dentist would be required to respect and stand immune from any regulatory supervision whatsoever. His employee, the licensed dentist, would also be immune from discipline upon the ground that he was but a mere employee and was not responsible for his employer's misconduct, whether the employer be a corporation or a natural person." ( Id. at p. 296.) The opinion also referred to the basic rationale of the corporate practice prohibition: the potential for "a secondary and divided loyalty to the patient." ( Id. at p. 297.)