An ethical challenge unique to forensic psychology is dual-role conflict. This occurs when an attorney or the court asks a professional to offer both therapeutic support and a forensic evaluation for the same individual. This situation creates a dilemma, since typically, as a counselor or psychologist, our role is to focus on well-being, trust, and support. In forensic practice, however, the role shifts more towards becoming an objective evaluator to provide impartial assessment, which may sometimes be unfavorable for the individual being evaluated.
Blurring these roles risks loss of objectivity in the evaluation, violation of informed consent, and may potentially harm the individual if privileged therapeutic information is used against them. A way to resolve this issue is by setting clear initial boundaries, both verbally and in writing, regarding which role you serve. To avoid conflicts of interest, forensic evaluations can be referred to a trusted colleague. Additionally, a transparent outline of ethical limits with citations can be provided to justify a refusal to take on both roles.
It is essential to maintain this separation to preserve both the integrity of the evaluation and the trust of the therapeutic relationship. While this sometimes means pushing back against attorneys or courts, it reinforces credibility as an ethical practitioner.