A One-Star Review, a Lost Lease, and Thirty-Four Clients
An LPC in solo practice learns that her office building has been sold and she must vacate in 21 days. She carries 34 active clients, including a six-member weekly skills group and three clients in acute grief after a community tragedy. The same week, a former client posts a one-star public review naming the counselor and writing, "this is the therapist who told my husband everything." The counselor recognizes the client as one half of a couple she saw two years ago for six sessions. She drafts a public reply stating that the review is false because the client signed a release, and separately plans to email all clients that "services are ending immediately" so she can focus on the move.
1. Should she post the reply she drafted?
Read the worked answer
No - the draft makes things worse in three ways.
- It confirms the relationship. Even a denial that says "this client" or "the allegations about our work" confirms that the reviewer was a client. A generic response avoids that; her draft does not.
- It discloses treatment facts. Referring to a signed release and to what was or was not shared with a spouse reveals clinical and relational information to the public. A release signed two years ago is not a license to discuss the case in a review thread.
- It invites escalation and a board complaint. A public fight with a former client is exactly the fact pattern that generates a complaint, and her own post becomes the exhibit.
Instead: respond only in non-clinical terms - "We can't discuss any client's care publicly; please contact the office directly" - or do not respond at all. Verify whether the platform will remove a review that discloses health information. Consider legal options with an attorney before doing anything public; defamation claims are usually a bad trade for a clinician because the litigation itself becomes the disclosure.
Also check: whether her records or communications leaked the information the reviewer describes. If there was an actual unauthorized disclosure, that is a separate problem requiring consultation and possibly self-reporting.
2. How should she handle closing the practice on 21 days' notice?
Read the worked answer
Twenty-one days is short but not zero; "ending immediately" converts a logistical problem into abandonment.
Plan the closure as a clinical intervention:
- Notify every client in writing with the closure date, the reason stated simply, options for continuation, and how to obtain records. Offer at least one session to process the ending.
- The grief clients need the most protection: their current treatment is about loss, and an abrupt termination replicates the original injury. Prioritize them for transition sessions and warm handoffs with releases.
- The skills group needs a group-level ending, not individual emails - announce in group, allow members to process together, provide referrals, and consider whether a co-facilitator or agency can absorb the group intact.
- Records: confirm the retention rule that applies, tell clients where records will be stored and how to request copies, and obtain written authorizations before sending anything to a new provider.
- Practical: update the voicemail, website, and directory listings with the closure date and a referral line; arrange coverage for emergencies during the wind-down.
Documentation: the notice sent, dates of final sessions, referrals offered, and each client's response. An unplanned disappearance is abandonment; a documented, planned termination is not.
3. The former client's review also raises a question about what she may say to defend herself if a complaint follows. How does that change her handling of the file?
Read the worked answer
It sharpens it. She should assume the review may precede a board complaint and that anything she writes may be read by an investigator.
Preserve, don't alter. Do not edit or "clean up" the record of the couple's six sessions. Late entries may be added, clearly labeled with the date written and the date of the event. Backdating or deleting is far more damaging than whatever the notes actually say.
Separate the threads. (1) The accuracy of the review; (2) whether any protected information was in fact disclosed to the spouse and whether a valid authorization existed; (3) the closure obligations to current clients. Conflating them produces bad decisions in all three.
In any board or legal proceeding, she may disclose what is necessary to respond to the allegations - that is a recognized exception - but the exception is narrow and applies in the forum, not on the internet. Consult counsel or the malpractice carrier before filing any response.
Consultation and support: document a consultation with a colleague or ethics consultant, keep a chronology of the review, the closure, and all client contacts, and avoid contacting the former client about the review. A defensible file is built now, not after the letter from the council arrives.