Thinking back on my past life as a litigator, there are at least two ways
that someone performing roles like a coach would have been protected:
either as an agent of the attorney, and thus sharing the attorney-client
privilege and work-product protections, or as a consulting expert. (BTW
MHPs, employment is not a requirement to fall within the attorney-client
privilege - independent professionals can fall within these protections).
Has anyone looked at either of those analyses to see if they might apply in
collaborative practice? I wouldn't see why not, though it might be
necessary to do some tweaking of the retainer agreements to make clear it
does.
(I wouldn't presume that even an enforceable provision disqualifying the
coach would necessarily be interpreted to automatically come with
confidentiality/privilege protections. You might be disqualified, but I'd
still subpoena your tushy.)
Jeff Bean
The Bean Law Firm PLLC
Your Solutions - Beyond the CourthouseT
Mediation Services. Collaborative Practice.
Seattle 206 794 5585
_____
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Susan A. Hansen
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 3:15 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [CollabLaw] Re: Confidentiality/ Privilege for MHP in
Collaborative Practice
Our participation agreement in Wisconsin is a Stipulation and Order (given
the statutory waiting period for divorce, the action is typically filed
before the information exchange/negotiation occurs). This gives
enforceability to the collaborative agreement terms, including the
disqualification of all team members (specifically mental health
professionals--coaches and child specialists--and financial neutrals).
Sue Hansen : Attorney
www.h-hlaw.com
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Sue%20Hansen\Application%20Data\Micro
soft\Signatures\www.h-hlaw.com>
Hansen & Hildebrand, S.C.
126 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 401
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
' P: (414) 273-2422
' F: (414) 273-3966
* E: sah@xxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of abuschophd@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:33 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CollabLaw] Re: Confidentiality/ Privilege for MHP in Collaborative
Practice
My understanding is that "mental health" treatment is privileged and
that "coaching" is not mental health treatment. I would like this to
be tested since we would argue that we are using mental health
services in our coaching model and that the informed consent states
clearly that we will consider the information privileged. In reality
it is a gray area that needs IMHO a statute or something specific to
this type of coaching to protect us.
Any other thoughts about this topic? Are MHPs feeling vulnerable
about this? Any legal testing that you know of?
Ann Buscho, Ph.D.
www.DrAnnBuscho.com
Sent by iPhone's ridiculously tiny keyboard. Please excuse errors.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Attachment:
binOIgOH5cXp1.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped
