Lareau Craig R
Private Practice, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015 Sep-Dec;42-43:43-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.006. Epub 2015 Sep 26.
Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists are licensed in their respective professions, but they perform most of their work with attorneys in the legal arena. Both attorneys and mental health professionals place high value on confidentiality of information, reflected in the ethics of their professions and codified into laws governing their work. In psychology and psychiatry, there are some well-known exceptions to confidentiality; two primary exceptions include the mandated reporting of suspected child abuse and various "Tarasoff" duty to warn or protect laws. Generally, however, the corresponding duty for attorneys to report suspected child abuse or to warn or protect intended victims of threatened harm is not as extensive. This difference in mandated reporting responsibilities can create significant difficulties when attorneys need to retain forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to evaluate their clients, especially in criminal contexts. If the retained psychologist or psychiatrist is required to report suspected abuse or threatened harm, the attorney may be harming his or her client's legal interests by using the forensic psychologist or psychiatrist to evaluate his or her client. This article will briefly review the development of mandated reporting laws for psychologists and psychiatrists and juxtapose those with the legal and ethical requirements of confidentiality for attorneys embodied in the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. The article will then discuss the California Court of Appeals case in Elijah W. v. Superior Court, where the court addressed the issue of whether retained mental health professionals must report suspected child abuse and threatened harm to others as required by law or if they do not need to report because they come under the umbrella of the attorney work product privilege. This California court ultimately concluded that retained psychologists and psychiatrists work under the attorney work product privilege and are not required to comply with mandated reporting laws and "Tarasoff" duties.
法医心理学家和精神科医生都拥有各自专业的执业资格,但他们的大部分工作是在法律领域与律师合作进行的。律师和心理健康专业人员都高度重视信息的保密性,这体现在他们各自职业的道德规范中,并被编纂到管理其工作的法律中。在心理学和精神病学领域,保密性存在一些广为人知的例外情况;两个主要的例外包括对疑似虐待儿童的强制报告以及各种“塔拉索夫”警告或保护义务法。然而,一般来说,律师报告疑似虐待儿童情况或警告或保护受到威胁伤害的潜在受害者的相应义务并不那么广泛。当律师需要聘请法医心理学家和精神科医生来评估他们的客户时,尤其是在刑事背景下,这种强制报告责任的差异可能会带来重大困难。如果聘请的心理学家或精神科医生被要求报告疑似虐待或威胁伤害的情况,那么律师通过聘请法医心理学家或精神科医生来评估其客户可能会损害客户的法律利益。本文将简要回顾针对心理学家和精神科医生的强制报告法律的发展,并将其与律师 - 客户特权和律师工作成果特权中体现的律师保密性的法律和道德要求进行对比。然后,本文将讨论加利福尼亚上诉法院在伊利亚·W.诉高等法院一案中的判决,在该案件中,法院探讨了聘请的心理健康专业人员是否必须依法报告疑似虐待儿童情况以及对他人的威胁伤害,或者他们是否因受律师工作成果特权的保护而无需报告。加利福尼亚州的这家法院最终得出结论,聘请的心理学家和精神科医生受律师工作成果特权的保护,无需遵守强制报告法律和“塔拉索夫”义务。