Thank you all for your thoughts on this important topic.
Jeff Bean, I agree, the MHP might contract not to appear in a
subsequent litigation (by virtue of the signed informed consent
agreement with the coaching client), however, that will not stop the
subsequent attorney from subpoenaing the MHP to testify! I might
assert privilege, but according to my licensing board (for California
marriage family therapists and for licensed clinical social workers)
asserting the privilege would not work. We aren't protected because
we are performing "coaching" services, not psychotherapy. (It's
currently a grey area for California psychologists).
Would the MHP services be privileged under the attorney-client
privilege or as attorney work product? Does that attorney-client
privilege cover 4-way or 6-way collaborative meetings or
conversations by and among team members? I'm not sure, but I don't
think the privilege statute envisions more than conversations between
an attorney and his/her client.
Another thoughts for MHP's out there. If your liability policy
covers psychotherapy services, AND if coaching is NOT considered
psychotherapy, think about adding a rider to your policy to cover
your services as a collaborative coach or as a child specialist!
Does anyone know whether any of these questions have been tested by
any courts out there? If so, kindly let me know.
Again, thank you for your thoughts.
Warmly,
Debbie
Debra Bellings-Kee, MFT, JD
Collaborative Coach/Child Specialist
1030 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
Kentfield, CA 94904
220 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 454-8408
www.debrabellingskee.com
