The Client Who Names a Third Party
Marcus, an LMT, has been treating Elena for 14 weeks for depression. In session 12, Elena discloses that her ex-husband, Ray, has been sending threatening texts and that she has a protective order. She states, with flat affect and detailed planning, that she has purchased a handgun and intends to shoot Ray 'the next time he comes to the house,' which she expects within the week. She refuses to sign a safety plan and refuses voluntary hospitalization. She names Ray's address and workplace. Elena has no history of violence, but she has a recent DUII and is drinking heavily. Marcus is unsure whether the threat is 'serious' under the statute and worries that warning Ray will destroy the therapeutic alliance.
1. Walk through the duty-to-warn/protect analysis. What factors establish that this is a serious threat, and what must Marcus do?
Read the worked answer
Threshold analysis: The duty is triggered by a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim. Here:
- Identifiable victim - Ray, with address and workplace.
- Specific plan and means - handgun purchased; stated intent and timing ('next time he comes to the house').
- Proximity/feasibility - expected within the week; she knows where he is.
- Escalating risk factors - heavy alcohol use, recent DUII, flat affect, detailed planning, refusal of safety planning and hospitalization.
These facts satisfy a serious-threat standard even without a prior violent history. Absence of past violence is not dispositive.
Required actions:
- Attempt less-restrictive steps (safety plan, voluntary evaluation) - already refused.
- Warn the identifiable victim (Ray).
- Notify law enforcement.
- Document the threat, the assessment, the steps taken, and the rationale.
- Consider arranging emergency evaluation given refusal of voluntary care.
Alliance concern: The duty is a legal obligation, not a clinical option. Alliance rupture is a foreseeable consequence to manage afterward, not a reason to withhold warning.
2. Marcus worries that warning Ray violates confidentiality. Explain the interaction between confidentiality and the duty to protect, and how much he may disclose.
Read the worked answer
Interaction: Confidentiality is the default, but it is not absolute. The duty-to-protect obligation is a recognized exception permitting disclosure of the minimum information necessary to avert the threatened harm. Warning Ray does not 'breach' confidentiality in the actionable sense; it fulfills a legal duty.
Scope of disclosure: Marcus should disclose only what is necessary to protect Ray - the nature of the threat, the identified means, and the timing - not Elena's full clinical history, diagnosis, or unrelated session content. Over-disclosure beyond the protective purpose is a separate problem.
Documentation: Record what was disclosed, to whom, when, and why the disclosure was limited to that scope. If Marcus discloses more than necessary, he should be able to justify each element as protective.
Exam point: The question is not 'confidential or not' but 'what is the minimum necessary disclosure to discharge the duty.'
3. Elena later learns Ray was warned and files a complaint alleging Marcus breached confidentiality. How should Marcus's conduct be evaluated in the disciplinary process?
Read the worked answer
Evaluation framework: The board asks whether Marcus acted within a recognized exception and within the standard of care. Facts supporting him:
- A serious, specific, imminent threat to an identifiable victim.
- Refusal of less-restrictive interventions.
- Warning and law enforcement notification consistent with the duty.
- Contemporaneous documentation of the assessment and steps.
Where he could be vulnerable:
- If documentation is absent or reconstructed after the fact.
- If he disclosed more than necessary.
- If he delayed warning unreasonably while 'thinking about it.'
Likely outcome: A complaint alone does not establish a violation. If the record shows a good-faith, documented, minimally necessary warning, the board should find no violation. The lesson is that the documentation is the defense - the clinical judgment must be visible in the record.