Citation

Lareau CR. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2015; 42-43: 43-48.

Affiliation

Private Practice, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: clareau@prodigy.net.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.006

PMID

26404507

Abstract

Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists are licensed in their respective professions, but they perform most of their work with attorneys in the legal arena. Both attorneys and mental health professionals place high value on confidentiality of information, reflected in the ethics of their professions and codified into laws governing their work. In psychology and psychiatry, there are some well-known exceptions to confidentiality; two primary exceptions include the mandated reporting of suspected child abuse and various "Tarasoff" duty to warn or protect laws. Generally, however, the corresponding duty for attorneys to report suspected child abuse or to warn or protect intended victims of threatened harm is not as extensive. This difference in mandated reporting responsibilities can create significant difficulties when attorneys need to retain forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to evaluate their clients, especially in criminal contexts. If the retained psychologist or psychiatrist is required to report suspected abuse or threatened harm, the attorney may be harming his or her client's legal interests by using the forensic psychologist or psychiatrist to evaluate his or her client. This article will briefly review the development of mandated reporting laws for psychologists and psychiatrists and juxtapose those with the legal and ethical requirements of confidentiality for attorneys embodied in the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. The article will then discuss the California Court of Appeals case in Elijah W. v. Superior Court, where the court addressed the issue of whether retained mental health professionals must report suspected child abuse and threatened harm to others as required by law or if they do not need to report because they come under the umbrella of the attorney work product privilege. This California court ultimately concluded that retained psychologists and psychiatrists work under the attorney work product privilege and are not required to comply with mandated reporting laws and "Tarasoff" duties.

Language: en