The Mental Health Provider Privilege in the \u3ci\u3eWake of Jaffe v. Redmond\u3c/i\u3e

Many of the revisions to article V of the Uniform Rules of Evidence involved stylistic, nonsubstantive changes. In particular, all language was made gender neutral. The most substantial revision was to Rule 503, formerly titled Physician and Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege. This revision broadened the scope of the privilege to include a general mental health provider privilege, in accord with the trend in the states and the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s decision in Jaffee v. Redmond. In Jaffee, the Court recognized for the first time a federal psychotherapist-patient privilege and extended the privilege to confidential communications with a licensed social worker in the course of psychotherapy. In addition, most of the states have adopted some form of a licensed social worker privilege. This privilege usually is not a subpart of the psychotherapist or physician privilege Since the states do not uniformly define the type of provider whom the privilege covers, Uniform Rule 503 provides flexible definitions and a general mental health provider privilege in order to subsume the range of privileges offered by the states. In addition to expanding the privilege itself, Rule 503 was amended to provide five additional exclusions to the privilege

Conflict of Interest

The purpose of this article is to indicate situations in which conflict of interest problems most commonly arise and to suggest principles for avoiding such situations or resolving unavoidable conflicts. Part One presents an overview of the subject, with a discussion of general principles underlying conflict of interest problems. Part Two applies these general\u27 principles to a number of frequently encountered problem areas. Throughout the discussion, the author approaches problem situations with a cautious eye. Not every court or grievance committee would impose discipline or invalidate a transaction for all the conflicts scrutinized herein; nevertheless, the possibility of such measures necessitates extreme care

Introduction: The Bounds of Advocacy

I was asked, as Reporter for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers\u27 Bounds of Advocacy, to provide an Introduction to the substantive issues discussed by members of the Committee in succeeding articles. This article will therefore set the stage by indicating the need for the Bounds of Advocacy, the charge to the Committee, the process by which the Standards and Comments were drafted, re-drafted, and then re-drafted again, and the appropriate scope, purpose and use of the Standards and Comments

Professional Responsibility: Education and Enforcement

The fallout from the Watergate scandals has had a profound effect upon the legal profession because many of the prominent offenders were attorneys. The severity of the conduct involved and the suspicion that the activities publicized represent merely the tip of the iceberg have caused the American Bar Association, state and local bar committees, and law schools to seek new ways of educating prospective lawyers with respect to their ethical duties, and to seek more effective sanctions against ethically deficient attorneys. It is ironic, however, that increased awareness and activity in the area of legal ethics should be motivated by Watergate, because no course in ethics, no better program of discipline, no keener awareness of moral issues would have succeeded in altering the conduct of the principle offenders where the criminal laws and their personal moral values failed to deter their activities. Nevertheless, the impetus to re-examine approaches to the teaching of professional responsibility and re-evaluate the principles and objectives of the governing rules of legal ethics should not be lost, for the legal profession\u27s record in the education and enforcement of professional responsibility has been unsatisfactory

An Overview of the Law of Professional Responsibility: The Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated and Analyzed

This Article contains two parts with different purposes. The first part consists of an introduction and critique of the recently adopted Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Some of the rules that differ from the Model Rules, that violate Constitutional requirements, or that inappropriately resolve competing policies are evaluated. Two of the most important areas—confidentiality and advertising—are treated separately and in-depth in student Survey Comments. The second part of this Article consists of an overview of the law of professional responsibility in Washington. It follows the organization and rule sequence of the RPC, with annotations, applications, and interpretations from the ABA Model Rule Comments and judicial decisions from Washington and elsewhere. This overview may be employed in understanding and applying the law of professional responsibility as it presently exists. Citations to cases predating the effective date of the RPC have been included only when the law they interpret is unchanged by the adoption of the RPC

An Overview of the Law of Professional Responsibility: The Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated and Analyzed

This Article contains two parts with different purposes. The first part consists of an introduction and critique of the recently adopted Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Some of the rules that differ from the Model Rules, that violate Constitutional requirements, or that inappropriately resolve competing policies are evaluated. Two of the most important areas—confidentiality and advertising—are treated separately and in-depth in student Survey Comments. The second part of this Article consists of an overview of the law of professional responsibility in Washington. It follows the organization and rule sequence of the RPC, with annotations, applications, and interpretations from the ABA Model Rule Comments and judicial decisions from Washington and elsewhere. This overview may be employed in understanding and applying the law of professional responsibility as it presently exists. Citations to cases predating the effective date of the RPC have been included only when the law they interpret is unchanged by the adoption of the RPC

Conflict of Interest

The purpose of this article is to indicate situations in which conflict of interest problems most commonly arise and to suggest principles for avoiding such situations or resolving unavoidable conflicts. Part One presents an overview of the subject, with a discussion of general principles underlying conflict of interest problems. Part Two applies these general\u27 principles to a number of frequently encountered problem areas. Throughout the discussion, the author approaches problem situations with a cautious eye. Not every court or grievance committee would impose discipline or invalidate a transaction for all the conflicts scrutinized herein; nevertheless, the possibility of such measures necessitates extreme care

11. Looking Back

From Alumni Views, Robert H. Bluestein (’67), “ILR addressed the social and economic issues of the times and sought to provide students with the tools to find solutions to many of the problems confronting society in the mid-to late-sixties. This was a period easily described as volatile, evolutionary, and sometimes revolutionary. As would have been the case at any vibrant institution, the curriculum and the students at ILR reflected those times.” Includes: Alumni Views of ILR; The Creation of the Alpern Scholarship and Prize; and A Professor’s Perspective

Attorney-Client Confidentiality and the Assessment of Claimants Who Allege Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was first recognized by the American Psychiatric Association in 1980. A PTSD diagnosis requires an individual or individual\u27s loved ones to have experienced a traumatic event that was a threat to life or physical integrity and caused the individual to react to the incident with a specific number of avoidance, reexperiencing, and hyper-arousal symptoms. Obtaining a PTSD diagnosis can be of great value to a personal-injury plaintiff who claims damages due to a traumatic event. Further, if the traumatic event is unquestioned and the individual reports the classic symptoms, a PTSD diagnosis is relatively easy to apply and difficult to disprove. These plaintiffs will most often be examined and evaluated by mental-health professionals retained by the defendants. The question of whether the claimant was told or provided materials about common PTSD symptoms is crucial to the defense evaluator\u27s accurate PTSD assessment. One source of such information would be plaintiffs counsel, but questions concerning information provided by counsel implicate the attorney-client privilege. This Article suggests that the policy bases underlying the attorney-client privilege and protecting a defendant\u27s right to test the validity of a plaintiff\u27s claims are best served by the creation of a narrowly drawn waiver or exception to the attorney-client privilege. Consistent with the patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege, the proposed exception would be limited to those matters directly related to the nature, diagnosis, and symptoms of PTSD placed in issue by the plaintiff. The exception would also be limited to statements and materials about PTSD symptoms the attorney provided the client. This Article also notes the difficult ethical boundary between an attorney providing essential advice to a client about the nature of emotional and psychological damages versus improper coaching. The proposed exception would help discourage improper coaching and lead to the discovery of any improper coaching that had already occurred. Even where the information provided by the attorney was appropriate from an ethical standpoint, discovery of that information is essential to an accurate diagnosis and fairness to defendants