Counselor Education Comprehensive Exam 2025 – 400 Free Practice Questions to Pass the Exam

The legal case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California is a landmark decision that significantly impacted the ethical and legal responsibilities of counselors regarding client confidentiality and the duty to protect individuals from harm. The ruling established that when a counselor becomes aware that a client poses a serious risk of harm to themselves or a specific third party, the counselor has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to warn that person or protect them from potential harm.

This decision emphasizes the importance of balancing client confidentiality with the responsibility to ensure the safety of others. Counselors must be vigilant and assess the risk of harm in their therapeutic relationships, and if there is a credible threat, they must intervene appropriately, which may include notifying the potential victim, law enforcement, or other relevant authorities. The overarching principle highlighted in this case is the duty to protect, which sometimes necessitates breaking confidentiality to prevent serious harm.

The other choices—providing informed consent, maintaining confidentiality, and protecting communication in court—are important ethical practices in counseling but do not capture the specific legal obligation that arose from the Tarasoff case. The case emphasizes the proactive steps counselors must take in situations where there is an imminent threat of harm, making the requirement to warn third parties the central focus of its