Duty to Protect When a Client Names a Specific Target
A 34-year-old client, Ray, has been in treatment for depression and escalating anger. In session he tells his counselor, Priya, that his former supervisor 'destroyed my life' and that he has been driving past the supervisor's house at night. He says he has a handgun in his truck and that 'when I decide, it'll be quick and there won't be a warning.' He refuses to sign a no-harm agreement, says he will not return to treatment, and storms out. Priya has the supervisor's name and workplace but no address, and Ray has not stated a date or explicit plan to kill. She is unsure whether this rises to a reportable threat and whether she may warn the employer.
1. Analyze whether Priya has a duty to act and what factors move this from generalized anger toward a specific, identifiable threat.
Read the worked answer
The analysis turns on identifiability and immediacy, not on a formal plan. Ray named a specific person, described surveillance behavior (driving past the house), disclosed access to a firearm, used language suggesting an imminent and sudden act, refused safety planning, and terminated treatment, which removes the containment that therapy provides. Those facts together support a reasonable belief of serious danger to an identifiable person. The absence of a stated date does not neutralize the threat when access, target, and intent language are present. Priya should document the specific statements verbatim, assess for additional risk factors, and treat this as triggering a duty-to-protect analysis rather than dismissing it as venting.
2. What protective actions are available to Priya, and how should she choose among warning the target, notifying law enforcement, and arranging emergency evaluation?
Read the worked answer
She should take the least intrusive step that adequately protects the target, and may need more than one. Notifying law enforcement about the firearm access and threat is appropriate and can prompt a welfare or threat assessment. Warning the identified target (the supervisor) with only the information necessary to protect-nature of the threat, no clinical details beyond what is needed-is also appropriate where the target is identifiable. Arranging emergency evaluation is indicated if Ray can be located and appears to present imminent risk. She should not warn the employer broadly or disclose treatment details to coworkers. She should consult a supervisor or risk colleague, document each action and its timing, and follow up to confirm the warning reached the target. If Ray returns, she should re-engage and reassess.
3. Priya is tempted to disclose Ray's full diagnosis and therapy history when warning the supervisor so the warning 'seems credible.' What is the correct scope of disclosure, and how does documentation protect her?
Read the worked answer
The warning should be limited to what is necessary to allow the target to take safety steps: that a specific individual has made threatening statements involving a firearm and that the target should take precautions and contact law enforcement. Diagnosis, childhood history, and session content unrelated to the threat are not necessary and should be withheld. Over-disclosure creates its own confidentiality breach and can expose her to complaint. Documentation should record the threat language, the risk assessment, the consultation, the persons notified, the time and method of notification, and the information disclosed. Good documentation demonstrates that the disclosure was narrowly tailored and reasonable, which is the strongest protection if the Board later reviews her conduct.