Breaking Barriers to Justice
The more time you invest in getting to know them — in building the kind of trust that makes it safe to disclose fully — the more complete your understanding of the case will be. That is not just compassionate practice. In this context, it is case development. A topic of discussion for another time.
employees in a therapeutic environment. The licensing status of each individual involved in a therapeutic context is not background — it is case architecture. What makes transference cases genuinely difficult — at intake and throughout litigation — is that many clients arrive unable to fully articulate that what was done to them was wrong. The therapeutic relationship is supposed to be the place of healing. When it becomes the source of harm, the client loses the very orienting structure therapy is meant to provide. She may describe feeling confused, physically ill, frozen. She may describe moments where she knew something was off but couldn't hold onto that knowing long enough to act on it. She may have said yes to things she didn't want, maintained contact she didn't understand, or told people in her life she was in some kind of relationship — because the exploitation of transference is specifically designed to make predation feel like reciprocal connection. At intake, this looks like a client who seemed to participate willingly, whose account is inconsistent, who expressed warmth toward the person who harmed her, and who waited months to come forward. It can look like no case at all. What it actually is, is a case where the harm was so thoroughly disguised by the structure of the therapeutic relationship that the client was often the last to recognize it — and may still be working toward that recognition when she first calls you. The physical or psychological escalation that finally broke through — the moment the grooming mask slipped enough for her to see it — is usually what gets her to a lawyer. For coverage purposes, the strategic question is whether the institutional claim — inadequate credentialing, failure to respond to complaints,
Therapists, Transference, and the Professional Duty of Care
Therapist-patient sexual misconduct is among the most legally complex scenarios in this space, in part because of how the law treats transference — the process by which patients in a therapeutic relationship develop intense emotional, sometimes romantic attachment to a therapist as a function of the therapeutic process itself. Therapists are trained to recognize it. They are professionally required to manage it appropriately. When they exploit it instead, something qualitatively different has occurred. Waters v. Bourhis, (1985) 40 Cal.3d 424, established that a therapist's sexual exploitation of a patient can give rise simultaneously to professional negligence and intentional tort. The distinction matters because MICRA's attorney fee cap applies to professional negligence but not to intentional tort recovery. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, expanded the liability circle: a therapist's misconduct with one family member who is also in treatment is foreseeable harm to other family members receiving care from the same therapist, creating professional malpractice claims across a broader class of plaintiffs. One line worth knowing: John Y. v. Chaparral Treatment Center, Inc. , (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 565, held that the transference foreseeability theory applies specifically to licensed psychotherapists, not to all
58
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs