The insured in this case was a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) with over fifteen years of experience in counseling. The client was a 45-year-old female with a history of borderline personality disorder, bipolar depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The client initiated counseling with the LPC and began attending 1-hour sessions twice weekly.

The LPC informed the client at the initial session that he was open to unlimited texting and communicating after hours and gave the client his personal cellular phone number and email address. Almost immediately, the client began texting and emailing the LPC with messages that went beyond typical counselor/client communications about scheduling and office practices and included personal matters and topics that were being discussed in their counseling sessions.

Over time, the client became emotionally attached to the LPC and believed that their relationship was like that of siblings. In fact, the client specifically asked the LPC if he would informally adopt her as his sister. The LPC agreed and they began referring to each other as siblings in all of their communications.

Several months later, the LPC and client collaborated on a business venture which resulted in the client starting her own business. Although the relationship never became romantic in nature, there were multiple communications in which they expressed “love” for each other.

The client invited the LPC to her wedding in which he agreed to give her away as the designated family member.

Shortly after the wedding, a colleague of the LPC became aware of the boundary extensions that were occurring and immediately advised the LPC that the relationship with the client was unethical and inappropriate. The colleague advised the LPC to refer the client to another counselor due to boundary violations. However, the LPC did not heed this advice, and it was not until another counseling peer also expressed concern about the boundary extensions that the LPC took action.

He informed the client that he needed to terminate the counseling relationship and provided her with several referral options in order to maintain uninterrupted therapy.

Shortly thereafter, the client filed a lawsuit asserting that the counselor had engaged in an inappropriate dual relationship and that the boundary violations resulted in severe emotional distress.

Integral to the defense’s resolution plan for this case was the lack of expert support and the likelihood that the client’s/plaintiff’s testimony would convince a jury that the LPC’s actions represented a breach of the standard of care.

Based upon the above-noted defense challenges, the claim was settled for more than $200,000. A board complaint was also filed by the client which resulted in license revocation, a fine, and defense costs.

HPSO Counselor Spotlight: Non-sexual boundary violations