
















Berlin, L. (2005). Can a Radiologist be Compelled to Testify as an Expert Witness? American
Journal of Roentgenology, 185, 36-42.
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/185/1/36
Campbell, T. W. (2005) Treating Therapist vs. Expert Witness
http://www.campsych.com/witness.htm
Eisner, D.A.(2010). Expert Witness Mental Health Testimony: Handling Deposition and Trial
Traps. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 28, 47-65.
http://www.eisnerpsychlaw.com/pdf/Eisner-Expert%20Witness.pdf
Greenberg, S. and Shuman, D.W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and
forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50-57.
Greenberg, S. and Shuman, D.W. (2007). When Worlds Collide: Therapeutic and Forensic
Roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38,129 132.
https://umdrive.memphis.edu/mpmrtens/public/CPSY%208201/Class%20
Readings/Greenberg%20&%20Shuman,%202007.pdf
Guthieil, T. G. (2002). The Psychiatric Expert Witness. Psychiatric Times, 19 (4).
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/47681
Mosher, R. S. and Barbrack, C. An Urgent Call: Treating Psychologists are not Expert
Witnesses:
http://www.practiceshapers.com/psychologists-are-not-expert-witnesses.htm
Nidich, P. A. (1999). Ethical Issues in the Use of the Treating Psychiatrist as an Expert
Witness
Poliacoff, J. H. Freud vs. Holmes: The Psychologist as Expert Witness
Reid, W. H. (1998). Treating Clinicians and Expert Testimony. Journal of Practical Psychiatry
and Behavioral Health March, 1-3.
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/Reid03-98.pdf
Reid, W. H. (2002). Forensic Work and Nonforensic Clinicians Part I. Journal of Psychiatric
Practice, 8 (2) 119-122.
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/14%20Reid%2003-02.pdf
Reid, W. H. (2002). Forensic Work and Nonforensic Clinicians, Part II: Reports and
Depositions. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 8 (3) 181- 183.
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/14%20Reid%2005-02.pdf
Reid, W.H (2010). When Lawyers Call Clinicians, Journal of Psychiatric
Practice 2010;16:253-257.
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/14%20Reid%2007-10%20pp253-257.pdf
Strasberger, L., Gutheil, T., & Brodsky, A. (1997). On wearing two hats: Role conflict in
serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. American Journal of Psychiatry,
154, 448 456.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/154/4/448.pdf
Swerdlow-Freed. D. H. Therapeutic and Forensic Role Conflicts:
http://www.drswerdlow-freed.com/articles/therapeutic-and-forensic-role-conflicts/
Treating Therapist vs. Expert Witness:
http://www.campsych.com/witness.htm
Anonymous: Why Your Client s Therapist Is The Worst Expert Witness for Your Case
Top of Page
Alternative View on Expert vs. Clinician

Heltzel, T. (2007). Compatibility of Therapeutic and Forensic Roles. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 38 (2), 122 128.
https://umdrive.memphis.edu/mpmrtens/public/CPSY%208201/
Class%20Readings/Heltzel,%202007.pdf
Ethics Codes and Specialty Guidelines Regarding Forensic Services



American Psychological Association - APA. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
o 2.01 Boundaries of Competence:
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
o 3.06 Conflict of Interest
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
o 3.05 Multiple Relationships
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
American Psychology-Law Society, Division 41 of the American Psychological Association
(APA), Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology
o Latest Draft: Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic
Psychology (2008).
http://www.ap-ls.org/links/92908sgfp.pdf
 6.02.01 Therapeutic-Forensic Role Conflicts
Providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same
individual or closely related individuals is considered a multiple relationship
that may impair objectivity and/or cause exploitation or other harm.
Therefore, when requested or ordered to provide either concurrent or
sequential forensic and therapeutic services, forensic practitioners disclose
the potential risk and make reasonable efforts to refer the request to another
qualified provider.
o Task Force on Specialty Guidelines (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic
Psychologists.
http://www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/SGFP_Final_Approved_2011.pdf
American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law (AAPL) Ethics Guidelines For The Practice
Of Forensic Psychiatry: Section IV. Honesty and Striving for Objectivity, parag. 7:
http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm
o Psychiatrists who take on a forensic role for patients they are treating may adversely
affect the therapeutic relationship with them. Forensic evaluations usually require
interviewing corroborative sources, exposing information to public scrutiny, or
subjecting evaluees and the treatment itself to potentially damaging crossexamination. The forensic evaluation and the credibility of the practitioner may also
be undermined by conflicts inherent in the differing clinical and forensic roles.
Treating psychiatrists should therefore generally avoid acting as an expert witness
for their patients or performing evaluations of their patients for legal purposes.
Treating psychiatrists appearing as "fact" witnesses should be sensitive to the
unnecessary disclosure of private information or the possible misinterpretation of
testimony as "expert" opinion. In situations when the dual role is required or
unavoidable (such as Workers' Compensation, disability evaluations, civil
commitment, or guardianship hearings), sensitivity to differences between clinical
and legal obligations remains important.
When requirements of geography or related constraints dictate the conduct of a
forensic evaluation by the treating psychiatrist, the dual role may also be
unavoidable; otherwise, referral to another evaluator is preferable.
Top of Page
Articles on Dual Role in Custody Cases

American Psychological Association (APA) (2009). Guidelines for Child Custody
Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings.Washington, D.C: Author.
http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody.pdf
The guidelines specifically address the multiple relationships matter in custody issues.
7. Psychologists strive to avoid conflicts of interest and multiple relationships in
conducting evaluations.
Rationale.The inherent complexity, potential for harm, and adversarial context of child
custody evaluations make the avoidance of conflicts of interest particularly important. The
presence of such conflicts will undermine the court's confidence in psychologists'
opinions and recommendations, and in some jurisdictions may result in professional
board discipline and legal liability.
Application. Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role, such as that of a
child custody evaluator, when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other
interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to result in (1) impaired
impartiality, competence, or effectiveness; or (2) exposure of the person or organization
with whom the professional relationships exists to harm or exploitation (Ethics Code
3.06). Subject to the same analysis are multiple relationships, which occur when
psychologists in a professional role with a person are simultaneously in another role with
that person, when psychologists are in a relationship with another individual closely
associated with or related to that person, or when psychologists promise to enter into
another future relationship with that person or with another individual closely associated
with or related to that person (Ethics Code 3.05). Psychologists conducting a child
custody evaluation with their current or prior psychotherapy clients, and psychologists
conducting psychotherapy with their current or prior child custody examinees, are both
examples of multiple relationships. Psychologists' ethical obligations regarding conflicts
of interest and multiple relationships pro vide an explainable and understandable basis
for declining court appointments and private referrals.


Benjamin, G. A. H. and Liang, T. (2010). Use a Stipulation: How to Avoid Being Accused of
Involvement in a Multiple Relationship
Berson, J. S. Dual Relationships for the Psychologist when custody is an Issue:
http://www.apadiv31.org/Coop/DualRelationships.pdf
Top of Page
Additional Article on Multiple Roles in Forensic Settings

Covell, C. and Jennifer Wheeler, J. (2006) Revisiting the 'Irreconcilable Conflict between
Therapeutic and Forensic Roles': Implications for sex offender specialists
http://www.ap-ls.org/publications/newsletters/aplsnews.fall2006.pdf (pages 6-8)
Alternative View on Multiple Roles in Forensic Settings

Stern, B. H. (2008). Clinicians As Expert Witnesses In Traumatic Brain Injury Cases
Subsequent Therapist Syndrome (STS)

Zur, O. (2012). Subsequent Therapist Syndrome: Are We Our Worst Enemy? Independent
Practitioner. 32/1, 10-12.
3.05 Multiple Relationships
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the
same time is in
another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely
associated with or
related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to
enter into another
relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could
reasonably be
expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her
functions as a
psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship
exists.
Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or
harm are not
unethical.
(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has
arisen, the
psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected
person and maximal
compliance with the Ethics Code.
(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in
more than one
role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of
confidentiality
and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm, and 3.07, Third-Party
Requests for Services.)
3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal,
financial, or other
interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or
effectiveness in
performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the
professional
relationship exists to harm or exploitation.