A subpoena is not a court order. The social worker must protect client confidentiality by claiming privilege. They should notify the client, discuss the disclosure, and advocate for limiting the scope of the subpoena.

The client has expressed a specific, imminent threat of serious physical harm against an identifiable victim (the ex-boss) and has the means (handgun). The social worker has a legal and ethical duty to warn the intended victim and notify the police.

While parents generally have legal rights to records, clinical social workers should protect adolescent privacy to maintain trust. Providing a general progress summary rather than raw session notes balances parental rights with client confidentiality.

NASW standards state that social workers should address potential boundary issues or direct knowledge of colleagues’ ethical lapses directly with the colleague first to resolve the concern before escalating to supervisors or licensing boards.

Social workers should not serve in dual roles (e.g., being a therapist and a forensic custody evaluator for the same client) as this represents a clear conflict of interest and compromises objectivity.

If a court order is issued, the social worker should request that the court withdraw or limit the order, or review the records in chambers (in camera) to minimize disclosure and protect client privacy.

Dating a close relative of a current client creates a dual relationship, compromises clinical objectivity, and violates professional boundaries, which can cause significant harm to the client.

NASW standards state that social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self-determination. However, this right can be limited if, in the professional judgment of the social worker, clients’ actions or potential actions pose serious harm to themselves or others.

Confidentiality must be maintained unless there is a risk of imminent, severe harm to the client or others, or in cases of child/elder abuse. Operating an illegal home business does not trigger confidentiality exceptions.

Releasing records to a third party (e.g. employer) requires a valid, written release of information (ROI) signed by the competent client, specifying the scope and limits of the disclosure.

Social workers should avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with professional judgment and objectivity. The personal business connection represents a conflict of interest, requiring the social worker to decline the role.

Searching for client personal information online without consent violates client privacy, crosses professional boundaries, and can undermine the therapeutic alliance.

When a client reports exploitation by a past therapist, the current social worker must prioritize client welfare and self-determination, helping the client process the trauma and explore reporting options rather than reporting without client consent.

Sharing case information with supervisors or professional consultants is standard clinical practice to ensure quality care, but identifying information must be removed or minimized to protect client privacy.

This situation represents a dual relationship/conflict of interest that can compromise clinical objectivity. The social worker must seek supervision to determine the best clinical path, which may involve referral.