Pre-licensed Employees

Download PDF

Avoiding Liability Bulletin – February 2012

… It is important for licensees who employ pre-licensed persons in private practice settings to assure that the advertising by the pre-licensed persons, if any is done, is reviewed by those employers. I have too often seen or learned about advertisements that were written by an employee, paid for by an employee, and seemed to advertise the intern’s or associate’s (pre-licensed) own practice. While that may or may not have been what was going on or intended, there is something wrong with such an arrangement – unless the conduct is authorized or permissible under state law. From the viewpoint of the owner of the business, or from the viewpoint of a nonprofit corporation hiring pre-licensed persons, why would pre-licensed employees be allowed to make final decisions about advertising?

If I owned a private practice and employed two registered interns to work in my private practice, I would want to make the decisions on what services, and which person’s services, were going to be advertised – and why. I would also want to carefully review the content of each advertisement, including business cards. I have recently heard about nonprofit corporations that employ interns and allow them to advertise as though they were sole proprietors, on the theory that these nonprofit corporations are training pre-licensed persons to develop their own private practices. Such a purpose for the corporation would seem to make it ineligible for nonprofit status on a state or federal level. I do not know how prevalent this practice is, but I have concerns.

It is important to remember that state law or regulation will likely require, at least to some extent, licensed and pre-licensed persons to make certain disclosures to consumers, both in advertisements and at the outset of the relationship with the client.


Richard Leslie

"At the Intersection of Law and Psychotherapy" Richard S. Leslie is an attorney who has practiced at the intersection of law and psychotherapy for the past twenty-five years. Most recently, he was a consultant to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), where he worked with their various state divisions to develop and implement their legislative agendas. He also provided telephone consultation services to AAMFT members regarding legal and ethical issues confronting practitioners of diverse licensure nationwide. Additionally, he wrote articles regarding legal and ethical issues for their Family Therapy Magazine and presented at workshops on a variety of legal issues. Prior to his work with AAMFT, Richard was Legal Counsel to the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) for approximately twenty-two years. He was director of Government Relations for CAMFT, and as such was the architect of CAMFT’s widely regarded and successful legislative agenda. He represented CAMFT before the regulatory board (the Board of Behavioral Sciences) and was a tireless advocate for due process and fairness for licensees and applicants. He was a regular presenter at workshops and was consistently evaluated as CAMFT’s most highly rated presenter. He also sat with the CAMFT Ethics Committee and acted as their advisor on matters pertaining to the enforcement of ethical standards. Richard is an acknowledged expert on matters pertaining to the interrelationship between law and the practice of marriage and family therapy and psychotherapy. For many years, he taught Law and Ethics courses for a number of colleges and universities in their marriage and family therapy degree programs. While at CAMFT, he provided telephone consultation services with thousands of therapists in California and elsewhere for over twenty years. He is highly regarded for his judgment, his expertise, his direct style, and his clarity. Richard has been the driving force for many of the changes and additions to the laws of the State of California that affect MFTs. In 1980, he was primarily responsible for achieving passage of the "Freedom of Choice Law" that required insurance companies to pay for psychotherapy services performed by MFTs. Passage of that law allowed MFTs to earn a living, allowed them to better compete in the marketplace, and strengthened the profession in California by leading to a great increase in the number of licensees and CAMFT membership. Currently, about half of the licensed marriage and family therapists in the country are licensed in California. While at CAMFT, Richard was primarily responsible for, among other things, the successful effort to criminalize sex between a patient and a therapist. He was successful in extending the laws of psychotherapist-patient privilege to MFTs, thereby giving patients the same level of privacy protection as when seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist. He fought tirelessly and successfully for the right of MFTs to refer to themselves as "psychotherapists," to perform psychological testing services, to be appropriately reimbursed by California’s Victims of Crime Program, and to be employed in county mental health agencies throughout California. Richard was admitted to the Bar in New York (1969) and in California (1973). While practicing in New York, he served as a public defender, and later, as an Assistant District Attorney. Shortly after moving to California, he worked for the San Diego County Human Relations Commission as their Law and Justice Officer. While there, he worked successfully to achieve greater racial diversity in the criminal jury selection system and to expose and stop police abuse. For such work with that agency, he was the recipient of the Civil Libertarian of the Year Award by the San Diego Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Have Questions? click here, We’re happy to help!