Case library / Sexual boundaries
Denied it to her employer, admitted it two days later
In short
Registration revoked. This one was not settled - it was proved at hearing by clear and convincing evidence
RevokedOne of the few cases in this dataset proved at a full hearing by clear and convincing evidence. Registration revoked.
One of the very few cases in the dataset proved at a full hearing rather than settled, so it shows what the evidentiary standard actually looks like.
What happened
A coworker reported that the associate had said she was in a sexual relationship with a former client, and had brought him to a wedding as her date.
She denied it to her employer, and denied it again to a private investigator the employer retained. She was terminated. Two days later she admitted it.
She told the Board investigator the romantic and sexual relationship ran from late July to late August 2023. The last therapy session had been February 28, 2023 — five months earlier, and well inside the two-year window.
Asked why she had denied it, she said she feared losing her job and her registration.
What it was charged as
Gross negligence.
Recklessly causing emotional harm.
Sexual relations with a former client within two years.
The outcome
Registration revoked. This one was not settled — it was proved at hearing by clear and convincing evidence.
OAH No. 2024120108
No cost recovery stated in the orderWhat the rule actually says
Five months is not two years. The clock in §4982(k) runs from termination of therapy, and there is no procedure — no consent form, no consultation, no waiting list — that shortens it.
Discussion
Analysis, not part of the decision
Almost everything else in this library is a stipulated settlement, in which the licensee does not admit the allegations and agrees only that the Board could establish a prima facie case. This one went to hearing and was proved by clear and convincing evidence. That is a meaningfully higher standard than the preponderance test used in ordinary civil matters, and it is worth knowing that the Board met it here.
Five months is not two years. The clock in §4982(k) runs from termination, and there is no consent form, consultation or waiting list that shortens it. The arithmetic in this case is not difficult, which suggests the miscalculation was not really about arithmetic.
The denials are the part worth teaching. She denied it to her employer, denied it again to an investigator the employer retained, and admitted it two days later. Her stated reason — fear of losing her job and her registration — is the same reason the intern in another case here gave for saying nothing at all. The denial did not prevent the outcome. It removed the only mitigation she had.
Where insurance reaches, and where it does not
The denial is the part with insurance consequences beyond the misconduct itself. Every policy contains a cooperation clause and most contain a provision voiding coverage for misrepresentation in connection with a claim. A false statement to an employer's investigator, made before any claim exists, is also the statement an insurer will read when deciding whether to defend.
What would have changed it
- The two days between the denial and the admission cost more than the relationship did procedurally — they are why this went to hearing rather than settling, and a hearing means findings of fact on the record.
- If you are ever asked about conduct like this, the answer is not yours to improvise. That is the moment to call your own attorney, which is what a board-defense sublimit is for.
Questions
For a law and ethics seminar, or for yourself
- Compare the evidentiary posture of a stipulated settlement with a contested hearing. What does a respondent give up, and get, by settling?
- She denied the relationship to a private investigator retained by her employer, not by the Board. Does that matter to the Board's case? Should it?
- What advice would you give a colleague who told you, in confidence, what she told her coworker?
Source. This write-up is drawn from the signed public decision in the case number above. Names, cities and employers have been removed — why. To pull the original, open the Board's quarterly newsletter archive, find the issue covering September 25, 2025, and match the case number in the Formal Disciplinary Actions section. Not legal advice.
