• Berlin, L. (2005). Can a Radiologist be Compelled to Testify as an Expert Witness?American Journal of Roentgenology, 185, 36-42.
  • Campbell, T. W. (2005) Treating Therapist vs. Expert Witness
  • Eisner, D.A.(2010). Expert Witness Mental Health Testimony: Handling Deposition and Trial Traps.American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 28,47-65.
  • Greenberg, S. and Shuman, D.W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28,50-57.
  • Greenberg, S. and Shuman, D.W. (2007). When Worlds Collide: Therapeutic and Forensic Roles.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38,129 132.
    Readings/Greenberg%20&%20Shuman,%202007.pdf
  • Guthieil, T. G. (2002). The Psychiatric Expert Witness.Psychiatric Times, 19(4).
  • Mosher, R. S. and Barbrack, C. An Urgent Call: Treating Psychologists are not Expert Witnesses:
  • Nidich, P. A. (1999).Ethical Issues in the Use of the Treating Psychiatrist as an Expert Witness
  • Poliacoff, J. H.Freud vs. Holmes: The Psychologist as Expert Witness
  • Reid, W. H. (1998). Treating Clinicians and Expert Testimony.Journal of Practical Psychiatry and Behavioral Health March,1-3.
  • Reid, W. H. (2002). Forensic Work and Nonforensic Clinicians Part I.Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 8(2) 119-122.
  • Reid, W. H. (2002). Forensic Work and Nonforensic Clinicians, Part II: Reports and Depositions.Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 8(3) 181- 183.
  • Reid, W.H (2010). When Lawyers Call Clinicians,Journal of Psychiatric Practice2010;16:253-257.
  • Strasberger, L., Gutheil, T., & Brodsky, A. (1997). On wearing two hats: Role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness.American Journal of Psychiatry, 154,448 456.
  • Swerdlow-Freed. D. H. Therapeutic and Forensic Role Conflicts:
  • Treating Therapist vs. Expert Witness:
  • Anonymous:Why Your Client s Therapist Is TheWorstExpert Witness for Your Case

Top of Page

Alternative View on Expert vs. Clinician

  • Heltzel, T. (2007). Compatibility of Therapeutic and Forensic Roles.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(2), 122 128.
    Class%20Readings/Heltzel,%202007.pdf

Ethics Codes and Specialty Guidelines Regarding Forensic Services

  • American Psychological Association - APA. (2010).Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
  • 2.01 Boundaries of Competence:
  • 3.06 Conflict of Interest
  • 3.05 Multiple Relationships
  • American Psychology-Law Society, Division 41 of the American Psychological Association (APA),Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology
  • Latest Draft: Committee on the Revision of theSpecialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology(2008).
  • 6.02.01 Therapeutic-Forensic Role Conflicts
    Providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual or closely related individuals is considered a multiple relationship that may impair objectivity and/or cause exploitation or other harm. Therefore, when requested or ordered to provide either concurrent or sequential forensic and therapeutic services, forensic practitioners disclose the potential risk and make reasonable efforts to refer the request to another qualified provider.
  • Task Force on Specialty Guidelines (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic Psychologists.
  • American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law (AAPL) Ethics Guidelines For The Practice Of Forensic Psychiatry: Section IV. Honesty and Striving for Objectivity, parag. 7:
  • Psychiatrists who take on a forensic role for patients they are treating may adversely affect the therapeutic relationship with them. Forensic evaluations usually require interviewing corroborative sources, exposing information to public scrutiny, or subjecting evaluees and the treatment itself to potentially damaging cross-examination. The forensic evaluation and the credibility of the practitioner may also be undermined by conflicts inherent in the differing clinical and forensic roles. Treating psychiatrists should therefore generally avoid acting as an expert witness for their patients or performing evaluations of their patients for legal purposes.

Treating psychiatrists appearing as "fact" witnesses should be sensitive to the unnecessary disclosure of private information or the possible misinterpretation of testimony as "expert" opinion. In situations when the dual role is required or unavoidable (such as Workers' Compensation, disability evaluations, civil commitment, or guardianship hearings), sensitivity to differences between clinical and legal obligations remains important.

When requirements of geography or related constraints dictate the conduct of a forensic evaluation by the treating psychiatrist, the dual role may also be unavoidable; otherwise, referral to another evaluator is preferable.

Top of Page

Articles on Dual Role in Custody Cases

  • American Psychological Association (APA) (2009).Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings.Washington, D.C: Author.

    The guidelines specifically address the multiple relationships matter in custody issues.

7. Psychologists strive to avoid conflicts of interest and multiple relationships in conducting evaluations.
Rationale.The inherent complexity, potential for harm, and adversarial context of child custody evaluations make the avoidance of conflicts of interest particularly important. The presence of such conflicts will undermine the court's confidence in psychologists' opinions and recommendations, and in some jurisdictions may result in professional board discipline and legal liability.
Application.Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role, such as that of a child custody evaluator, when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to result in (1) impaired impartiality, competence, or effectiveness; or (2) exposure of the person or organization with whom the professional relationships exists to harm or exploitation (Ethics Code 3.06). Subject to the same analysis are multiple relationships, which occur when psychologists in a professional role with a person are simultaneously in another role with that person, when psychologists are in a relationship with another individual closely associated with or related to that person, or when psychologists promise to enter into another future relationship with that person or with another individual closely associated with or related to that person (Ethics Code 3.05). Psychologists conducting a child custody evaluation with their current or prior psychotherapy clients, and psychologists conducting psychotherapy with their current or prior child custody examinees, are both examples of multiple relationships. Psychologists' ethical obligations regarding conflicts of interest and multiple relationships pro vide an explainable and understandable basis for declining court appointments and private referrals.

  • Benjamin, G. A. H. and Liang, T. (2010).Use a Stipulation: How to Avoid Being Accused of Involvement in a Multiple Relationship
  • Berson, J. S. Dual Relationships for the Psychologist when custody is an Issue:

Top of Page

Additional Article on Multiple Roles in Forensic Settings

  • Covell, C. and Jennifer Wheeler, J. (2006) Revisiting the 'Irreconcilable Conflict between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles': Implications for sex offender specialists
    6-8)

Alternative View on Multiple Roles in Forensic Settings

  • Stern, B. H. (2008).Clinicians As Expert Witnesses In Traumatic Brain Injury Cases

Subsequent Therapist Syndrome (STS)

  • Zur, O. (2012).Subsequent Therapist Syndrome: Are We Our Worst Enemy?Independent Practitioner.32/1, 10-12.

3.05 Multiple Relationships

(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in

another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or

related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another

relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be

expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a

psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.

Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not

unethical.

(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the

psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal

compliance with the Ethics Code.

(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one

role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality

and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm, and 3.07, Third-Party Requests for Services.)

3.06 Conflict of Interest

Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other

interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in

performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional

relationship exists to harm or exploitation.