The Relocated Telehealth Counselor and the 'Supervising LPC'
Dana holds an active Licensed Professional Counselor license in Colorado and moved to Tulsa in March. She has not applied for an Oklahoma license. Dana provides weekly video sessions to four clients who are physically located in Oklahoma, and two of those clients are also seen in person by Renee, an Oklahoma LPC-Candidate, in Renee's office. Dana supervises Renee by telephone, two hours per month; Renee's files list Dana as 'supervising LPC.' Dana's online directory profile reads 'Licensed Professional Counselor - OK & CO' and advertises 'over 3,000 supervised clinical hours.' When Renee asks whether Dana needs an Oklahoma license, Dana says the license 'travels with the counselor, and the hands-on client work is really Renee's anyway.'
1. Is Dana's conduct a licensure violation? Analyze where the practice occurs, what the Colorado license authorizes, and the effect of the directory statement.
Read the worked answer
Where the practice occurs. Counseling generally occurs where the client is located at the time of service. Dana is delivering counseling to people physically in Oklahoma, so she is practicing in Oklahoma, not Colorado. A Colorado license authorizes practice in Colorado only; it does not follow the counselor across state lines and there is no automatic reciprocity. Unless Oklahoma's Act and Board rules provide a specific pathway (e.g., licensure by endorsement or a telehealth registration - verify the current rule), Dana is practicing without an Oklahoma license.
The 'hands-on work is Renee's' argument fails. Renee is a candidate under supervision, not an independent clinician; the clinical responsibility for those cases traces back to the supervisor of record - who in Oklahoma must be an appropriately licensed and Board-qualified supervisor. An unlicensed supervisor cannot launder her own unlicensed practice through a candidate.
Title protection and advertising. 'Licensed Professional Counselor - OK & CO' is a false representation of credential; holding oneself out as an Oklahoma LPC without the license is a separate violation from practicing without one. The Act and Board rules also reach deceptive or misleading advertising, so the unverified '3,000 hours' claim is independently risky.
Exposure. Unlicensed practice supports a cease-and-desist order, civil penalties, and discipline; it may also void malpractice coverage and create serious problems on any future Oklahoma application.
2. Evaluate the supervision arrangement. What are Dana's obligations, what are Renee's independent obligations, and what must change?
Read the worked answer
Dana's side. If Dana is not licensed in Oklahoma and not recognized by the Board as a qualified supervisor, she cannot serve as Renee's supervisor of record. Even setting licensure aside, the format is deficient: two hours per month by telephone, with no direct observation or session review, no written supervision contract or plan, no documented agenda, and no periodic written evaluation does not satisfy Board supervision rules, which set minimum frequency and documentation expectations for candidates.
Client welfare and informed consent. The two clients should know who is clinically responsible for their care, how to reach that person, and that the supervisor has access to their records (ACA Standard F.1.c on informed consent for supervision). A phone-only relationship in which Dana never reviews a session is not a defensible version of that disclosure.
Renee's independent duties. A candidate is responsible for verifying that her supervisor is Board-approved, that supervision is actually occurring at the required frequency, and that her supervision agreement reflects reality. Listing an unlicensed out-of-state counselor as 'supervising LPC' exposes Renee to discipline and, worse, leaves her accumulating hours that may be rejected at licensure.
What must change. (1) Renee secures a Board-approved Oklahoma supervisor immediately; (2) Dana stops supervising and stops being named; (3) supervision moves to the Board-required frequency with documented case review and direct observation; (4) the two clients are informed and, if continuity requires it, transitioned with proper consent and record transfer.
3. Dana asks what to do next week. Set out the sequence of steps and explain why the order matters.
Read the worked answer
1. Protect clients first. Do not hold the four Oklahoma sessions while unlicensed. Either arrange transfer to licensed Oklahoma providers with signed releases and continuity documentation, or advise the clients of the situation and their options. Client abandonment is itself an ethics problem, so termination must be planned, not abrupt.
2. Stop the violation immediately. Pull the directory listing and all advertising claims that same day. Every additional day of listing is a continuing misrepresentation.
3. Fix the supervision chain. Tell Renee, in writing, that Dana cannot serve as supervisor of record, and help Renee identify an approved supervisor before her next session if possible.
4. Check coverage. Notify the malpractice carrier; policies typically exclude practice outside licensure, and Dana needs to know her exposure before she speaks to anyone else.
5. Regularize status. Apply for Oklahoma licensure (endorsement if available), honestly disclosing the out-of-state practice on the application. Candor usually mitigates; concealment discovered later is far worse.
6. Decide on self-report and get counsel. Consult an attorney experienced with Board matters about whether and how to notify the Board. Document every decision and its rationale.
The order is deliberate: safety of the clients and the candidate comes before paperwork, and paperwork comes before any conversation with the Board.