The insured firm owner employed an LPC who had several years of experience in counseling and had recently been hired by the insured.

 The client was a 21-year-old male who presented for treatment of a newly diagnosed anxiety disorder and a history of bipolar depression which he attributed to an abusive family situation.

The client was residing at home with his parents and reported that he wanted to extricate himself from the abusive home environment, but was unable to afford an apartment on his own. The LPC offered to “help” and advised the client to pay him an additional amount over and above the counseling fee each week that he would “save” and return to him when there was enough for the client to secure an apartment.

However, instead the LPC used the client’s money to pay for her own personal debts. After several months, the client asked the LPC for the funds as he found an affordable apartment and a roommate.

The LPC admitted that she no longer had the funds and explained that she needed to use the money for unexpected debts.

In response, the client discontinued counseling and filed a police report and licensing board complaint. The LPC was criminally charged for theft and was subsequently charged by the Board with failing to provide notification of a criminal conviction and engaging in unethical conduct.

The Board matter was resolved through a settlement agreement in which the LPC voluntarily surrendered her license. In addition, a professional liability lawsuit was filed by the client against the LPC asserting that the boundary violation exacerbated his underlying behavioral health condition and delayed his treatment, as he was unable to trust anyone in the counseling profession.

The insured firm was held vicariously liable for the actions of the LPC in addition to claims of negligent supervision. The LPC admitted in her deposition that she had violated the ACA Code of Ethics and that her actions were unethical.

The firm owner testified that he was unaware of the unethical actions of the LPC and that he had not conducted any supervision as he assumed the LPC was experienced and competent. This case was settled for more than $150,000 on behalf of the insured firm. Amounts incurred by other defendants in the case are not available.

HPSO Counselor Spotlight: Non-sexual boundary violations