9.5 Addressing Unethical or Incompetent Colleague Conduct

9.5 Addressing Unethical or Incompetent Colleague Conduct

Exam Focus: Task 54 — "address unethical or incompetent conduct of colleagues to protect the well-being and best interest of clients." Two knowledge statements: types of unethical colleague behaviors that require intervention or action (K148), and ethical standards regarding addressing unethical or incompetent conduct of colleagues (K149).

---

The Duty to Act

ACA I.2.a (Informal Resolution) and the surrounding standards establish that a counselor who has reason to believe another counselor is violating or has violated an ethical standard attempts first to resolve the issue informally with that counselor, if feasible, provided such action does not violate confidentiality rights.

Doing nothing is not among the options. The choice is between informal resolution, institutional channels, and a report to the licensing board.

Conduct That Requires Action (K148)

---

The Decision Path

CONCERN ABOUT A COLLEAGUE
  |
  +-- Is a client in immediate danger?  YES -> act now; protect the client
  |                                            first, then report.
  |
  +-- CONSULT.  Supervisor, ethics consultation, or professional
  |   association ethics service.  Document.
  |
  +-- Would informal resolution be feasible AND not violate a client's
  |   confidentiality rights?
  |        YES -> raise it directly with the colleague (ACA I.2.c)
  |        NO  -> skip to formal channels
  |
  +-- Did informal resolution succeed?
  |        YES -> document and monitor
  |        NO  -> institutional channels: supervisor, clinical director,
  |               agency compliance
  |
  +-- Substantial harm caused or likely, and informal resolution
      inappropriate or unsuccessful?  -> REPORT (ACA I.2.d):
        BBS complaint, professional association ethics committee, and
        law enforcement where a crime is alleged.

ACA I.2.d (Reporting Ethical Violations) requires reporting to appropriate authorities when an apparent violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution or is not resolved properly.

ACA I.2.e (Consultation) clarifies that the reporting standards do not apply when a counselor has been retained to review the work of another counselor whose professional conduct is in question — a peer reviewer or expert consultant operates under the terms of that engagement.

---

Confidentiality Constrains the Method, Not the Duty

The most common wrong answer treats client confidentiality as a reason for silence. The accurate analysis:

• The counselor generally cannot disclose a client's identity to a colleague or to the Board without authorization.
• The counselor can report their own observations, records they are lawfully entitled to, and information the client authorizes.
• The client may file the complaint themselves, and the counselor can inform the client of that option and help them do so — with the client's consent, the counselor may then release the necessary information.
• When a licensee is an employee, agency compliance channels can act on information already lawfully held within the organization.

---

California BBS Mechanics

• Anyone may file a complaint with the BBS, including clients, colleagues, employers, and family members.
• The BBS reviews and may refer the matter for investigation; where discipline is warranted, the Attorney General's office files an accusation, the matter is heard by an Administrative Law Judge under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Board acts on the proposed decision.
• Outcomes range from a citation and administrative fine, to a public reprimand, probation, suspension, revocation, or accepted surrender of the license.
• BPC § 4999.90 supplies the grounds; BPC § 4990.32 sets the limitations period for filing an accusation.

Sexual Misconduct: The Category Without an Informal Option

Sexual contact with a client is criminal in California under BPC § 729 and is independently unprofessional conduct under BPC § 4999.90(k). Informal resolution is never appropriate. Two related California duties:

1. BPC § 728 requires a psychotherapist who learns, from a patient, that the patient had sexual contact with a previous psychotherapist during treatment to provide the patient with the Board-approved brochure Professional Therapy Never Includes Sex and to discuss it with the patient.
2. Providing the brochure does not authorize the counselor to report the previous therapist without the client's consent; the decision to file a complaint belongs to the client. The counselor's job is to inform, support, and document.

---

Supervisors and Supervisees

• A supervisor who observes unethical conduct by a supervisee has an affirmative gatekeeping duty: protect the associate's clients, restrict or reassign work, remediate, and decline to verify hours that were not properly earned.
• A supervisee who observes unethical conduct by a supervisor is in a vulnerable position but retains the duty to act. The route is consultation, then the agency's channels, then the BBS. The associate's dependence on the supervisor for hours does not excuse silence and does not make the supervisor's instruction a defense.

---

Vignettes

Vignette 1 — The overheard breach. An LPCC overhears a colleague discussing a named client in a coffee shop. Best answer: raise it directly with the colleague under ACA I.2.c; informal resolution is feasible and does not violate any client's confidentiality rights. Document, and escalate only if the behavior continues.

Vignette 2 — The disclosed sexual contact. A new client discloses that her previous therapist had sex with her during treatment. Best answer: provide the Board-approved brochure required by BPC § 728 and discuss it, support the client, and inform her of her complaint options. The counselor does not file a report identifying the client without her consent.

Vignette 3 — The falsified hours. An associate discovers that her supervisor has been signing verification for hours she never worked. Best answer: this is fraud that substantially harms the licensing system and future clients. She consults, refuses to sign false records, uses agency channels, and reports to the BBS. Her dependence on the supervisor for hours does not create an exception.