Ethics and Accountability in Counseling: ACA Code Violations
This paper examines a counseling consultation scenario involving multiple ethical violations under the ACA Code of Ethics. It identifies specific breaches committed by a counselor named Lorena, including accepting a client's Facebook request, failing to use validated tools to monitor therapeutic effectiveness, engaging in nonprofessional interactions outside the office, and sharing client information without consent. The paper discusses how these violations can harm both the client and the counselor, erode public trust in the counseling profession, and undermine professional credibility. It concludes with recommendations for aligning intern and supervisor clinical practices with established professional standards.
- Introduction to Ethical Violations in the Scenario: Overview of ethical violations affecting the client
- Social Media Boundaries and Monitoring Effectiveness: Facebook boundary breach and ineffective progress monitoring
- Nonprofessional Interactions and Dual Relationships: Off-site meeting and resulting dual relationship risk
- Impact on Public Trust and Confidentiality: Violations eroding public confidence in counseling profession
- Aligning Clinical Work with Professional Standards: Steps to realign intern and supervisor professional conduct
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each ethical violation is tied directly to a specific ACA Code of Ethics provision, grounding claims in authoritative professional standards rather than opinion.
- The paper distinguishes between harms to the client and harms to the counselor, demonstrating nuanced thinking about who bears the consequences of each violation.
- The concluding section pivots from problem identification to practical remediation steps, giving the paper a constructive, solutions-oriented finish.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs code-based ethical analysis: each claim is anchored to a named subsection of the ACA Code of Ethics (e.g., A.5.e, C.2.d, A.6.e), modeling how professional practitioners reason from rule to application. This technique is standard in applied ethics writing and demonstrates the ability to translate abstract codes into real-world consequences.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by cataloguing four discrete ethical violations in sequence, devoting one paragraph to each. The fifth paragraph shifts register entirely, moving from diagnosis to prescription by outlining a management-style process for realigning intern and supervisor conduct with professional standards. The references section cites two professional association documents and one academic text, typical of a short applied ethics response at the undergraduate level.
Introduction to Ethical Violations in the Scenario
From the outset, it is important to note that several ethical violations exist in the present scenario that could negatively impact the client. The first such violation relates to Lorena's acceptance of Dominik's friend request on Facebook. Under the ACA Code of Ethics (specifically A.5.e, Personal Virtual Relationships with Current Clients), this is a prohibited action. More specifically, the Code states 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 posts made by Lorena, which could affect his perception of her and compromise the therapeutic relationship.
Social Media Boundaries and Monitoring Effectiveness
The client could also be harmed by Lorena's failure to effectively assess the progress of therapy — specifically, her failure to deploy appropriate tools and methodologies designed to monitor therapeutic effectiveness. This violation is captured under C.2.d, Monitor Effectiveness, which calls upon counselors to "continually monitor their effectiveness as professionals and take steps to improve when necessary" (American Counselling Association, 2014, p. 8). Lorena asserts that Dominik's continued attendance is itself evidence that the sessions are benefitting him. However, relying on attendance alone — without validated assessment tools — could result in a failure to detect stagnation or decline in client wellbeing.
Nonprofessional Interactions and Dual Relationships
One violation that could harm Lorena directly relates to interactions with the client that could be deemed nonprofessional — specifically, agreeing to meet Dominik at a restaurant rather than at the office. This violation is documented under A.6.e, Nonprofessional Interactions or Relationships (Other Than Sexual or Romantic Interactions or Relationships) (American Counselling Association, 2014). Such conduct risks creating a dual relationship, which could undermine Lorena's ability to execute her role as a counselor in an effective and professional manner. Conflict of interest arising from dual relationships can result in a loss of objectivity (Dryden & Reeves, 2008).
References
American Counselling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA Code of Ethics.
American Psychological Association. (2021). Protecting your privacy: Understanding confidentiality.
Dryden, W., & Reeves, A. (2008). Key issues for counselling in action. SAGE Publications.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.