Counseling Ethics Violations Aca Standards Case Study

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that several ethical violations in the present scenario that could negatively impact the client. The first such violation relates to Lorena’s acceptance of Dominik’s request on Facebook. Under the ACA Code of Ethics (specifically A.5.e Personal Virtual Relationships with Current Clients), this is a prohibited move. More specifically, it is indicated that “counselors are prohibited from engaging in a personal virtual relationship with individuals with whom they have a current counseling relationship (e.g., through social and other media)” (American Counselling Association, 2014). This has the potential to blur the professional relationship between Dominik and Lorena. Dominik could end up misinterpreting some posts made by Lorena which could affect his perspective of her.

Secondly, the client could also be harmed by Lorena’s failure to effectively assess the progress of therapy, i.e. via the deployment of the appropriate tools and/or methodologies meant to monitor effectiveness. The violation is captured under C.2.d. Monitor Effectiveness – in which case counsellors are called upon to “continually monitor their effectiveness as professionals and take steps to improve when necessary” (American Counselling Association, 2014, p. 8). Lorena points out that Dominik’s “coming back” is an indication that the sessions are benefitting him. Failure to deploy the appropriate tools and methodologies to assess effectiveness of counselling sessions could result in failure to notice stagnation of decline in client wellbeing.

One violation that could harm Lorena relates to interactions with the client that could be deemed nonprofessional, i.e. agreeing to meet Dominik at a restaurant instead of at the office. The violation in this case is documented under A.6.e. Nonprofessional Interactions or Relationships (Other Than Sexual or Romantic Interactions or Relationships) (American Counselling Association, 2014). This could have the impact of creating a dual relationship which could affect Lorena’s ability to execute her role as a counsellor in an effective and professional manner, i.e. as a consequence of the creation of conflict of interest. Dual relationships could result in loss of objectivity (Dryden and Reeves, 2008).

To a large extent, the practices embraced by Lorena could erode public perceptions about counselors (i.e. in relation to their credibility and accountability). To begin with, Lorena does not appear to base all her interventions on evidence-based research and accepted practice formats. This is more so the case given that she indicates that she read about some of the approaches deployed on the internet. The utilization of such interventions or methods could have negative therapeutic outcomes and reduce public confidence in the profession. Next, it should also be noted that counselors have a responsibility to ensure that private information of clients is secured. In this case, there is no indication that permission was sought from Dominik to share his private info with a third party (i.e. the team of counsellors called in). According to the American Psychological Association – APA (2021) it is only when clients are honest and open that psychotherapy can be effective. Thus, such violations of client privacy and confidentiality could affect the general public’s ability to develop trusting relationships with counselors.