Honestly, I don't think it has been court tested in Maryland. However,
our bench is extremely supportive of collaborative. Pauline Tesler
recently was here to speak at an event for our Court of Appeals Chief
Judge's favorite ADR project. It's an interesting issue, but I would be
very surprised if one of our judges made a coach testify with there
being a signed participation agreement saying that the coach would not
be called to testify were the case not to settle. I hope I am not being
short sighted. Anyone else on this list in Maryland please feel free to
chime in your thoughts and/or experience on this.
Darcy A. Shoop, Attorney At Law
Stein, Sperling, Bennett, De Jong,
Driscoll & Greenfeig, P.C.
25 W. Middle lane,
Rockville, MD 20850
(301) 838-3228 direct telephone
(301) 354-8128 direct facsimile
dshoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://tserver.steinsperling.com/vcard/DAS.jpg>
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)
promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein. In order for you to rely on written advice from
Stein, Sperling, Bennett, De Jong, Driscoll & Greenfeig, P.C. as
protection from tax-related penalties, please contact us to discuss
whether we can provide you with a formal written opinion.
This message contains information from the law firm of Stein, Sperling,
et al. that may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message
or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete
the message. Thank you very much.
________________________________
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Aaron Robb, M.Ed., NCC, LPC
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:45 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Confidentiality/ Privilege for MHP in
Collaborative Practice
What's been the court testing of that? I've seen lots of therapists who
try and have parents sign all sorts of "contracts" that would be voided
by a court for multiple reasons (frankly if you could sign away your
right to sue people my hospital would have me signing something like
that every time I go in). I've seen cases where therapists get
court-ordered "safe haven" provisions but that's a different animal than
asking a parent to waive a right they may not fully understand the
implications of, and which may not, due to public policy, BIOC issues,
etc. actually be waive-able.
Texas is fortunate because we have good statutes to back up our
practice, and I couldn't imagine being able to truly promise
confidentiality in a legal proceeding without them (both mediation and
collaborative law).
Aaron Robb, M.Ed., NCC, LPC-S
Forensic Counseling Services
http://www.texascounseling.org ;<http://www.texascounseling.org>
8553 N. Beach St. #335, Keller, TX 76248
(metro) 817-239-3828, Fax 940-343-2601
We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on
this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner
or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a
battlefield. -George Orwell "In front of your nose"
3/22/1946
This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the office of
Aaron Robb, LPC and are intended solely for the use of the named
recipients. Any dissemination of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If
you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all
copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any
printouts of the e-mails or attachments.
________________________________
From: Darcy A. Shoop <dshoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dshoop%40steinsperling.com> >
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:CollabLaw%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:14:05 AM
Subject: RE: [CollabLaw] Confidentiality/ Privilege for MHP in
Collaborative Practice
In our jurisdiction, most coaches have the clients sign a
confidentiality agreement that states they cannot be called to testify.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)
promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein. In order for you to rely on written advice from
Stein, Sperling, Bennett, De Jong, Driscoll & Greenfeig, P.C. as
protection from tax-related penalties, please contact us to discuss
whether we can provide you with a formal written opinion.
This message contains information from the law firm of Stein, Sperling,
et al. that may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message
or any information contained in the message. If you have received the
message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete
the message. Thank you very much.
________________________________
From: CollabLaw@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:CollabLaw@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of Debra Bellings-Kee
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:42 PM
To: CollabLaw@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: [CollabLaw] Confidentiality/ Privilege for MHP in Collaborative
Practice
Hello All,
I am part of a panel (2 attorneys, a financial neutral and me, the
MHP) presenting at CP-CAL's annual forum on the topic of
confidentiality and privilege in collaborative practice.
I would love to hear how others analyze this issue in their own
jurisdictions/ practice groups or whether any one is aware of any
legal cases that speak to this issue.
Coaching is currently an unregulated profession in California and
while we need to be licensed MHP's (pursuant to the IACP ethical
guidelines)to practice as a coach in the collaborative setting, we
may not have the protection of the privilege statute should we be
called to testify in a subsequent litigation when a collaborative
case falls out of collaboration!
Thank you in advance for any insight!
Warmly,
Debbie
Debra Bellings-Kee, MFT, JD
Collaborative Coach/Child Specialist
1030 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
Kentfield, CA 94904
(415) 454-8408
www.debrabellingske e.com
