Why Forensic Psychologists Cannot Be Treatment Providers for the Individuals They Evaluate
When psychologists work in the legal system, the lines between therapy and evaluation can look blurry from the outside. After all, both involve interviews, psychological testing, and talking about deeply personal experiences. But in reality, these two roles, the forensic evaluator and the treatment provider, are fundamentally different. Crossing between them is not just poor practice. It is an ethical violation that can undermine both the legal process and the integrity of the profession.
Different Roles, Different Purposes
A forensic psychologist operates within the context of a legal question. We are retained to answer specific, narrowly defined issues such as competency, sanity, risk, emotional damages, or other psycholegal matters. Our goal is to assist the court or a retaining attorney in reaching an informed legal decision.
A treatment provider, on the other hand, is focused on helping the client heal, grow, or manage psychological distress. The goal of therapy is therapeutic alliance and emotional well-being. The therapist advocates for the client’s best interests.
Those two aims, objective evaluation versus client advocacy, cannot coexist within the same professional relationship. Trying to wear both hats creates a conflict that contaminates both the data and the trust required for each role to function properly.
The Ethical Foundation
The APA Ethics Code and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013) are explicit about avoiding “multiple relationships” that could impair objectivity or risk harm. Guideline 4.02 specifically warns forensic psychologists against engaging in roles that may create a conflict between professional obligations or compromise impartiality.
When a psychologist serves as both evaluator and therapist for the same individual, several problems arise:
Loss of Objectivity: The empathy and alliance that make therapy effective are the same factors that compromise neutrality in an evaluation.
Compromised Data: A therapeutic client may shape disclosures based on the expectation of support, while an evaluee is expected to provide accurate information under scrutiny. Mixing these roles taints both sets of data.
Legal Contamination: Anything disclosed in therapy is confidential, but anything disclosed in a forensic evaluation may be discoverable in court. Once those boundaries blur, the psychologist risks violating confidentiality and evidentiary standards.
Dual Role Conflicts: The psychologist cannot simultaneously be an objective witness for the court and a confidential advocate for the client.
Before and After the Evaluation: The Rule Still Applies
Some well-intentioned psychologists believe they can provide therapy after completing a forensic evaluation, reasoning that the evaluation is finished. This is also unethical.
Why? Because even after the evaluation, the individual’s trust in the psychologist is inherently altered by the forensic role. The evaluator has seen private data, test results, and sensitive records that were obtained for a legal purpose, not for therapeutic use. The power imbalance and context of the prior relationship make genuine therapy impossible.
The same applies before an evaluation. A therapist cannot later become a forensic evaluator for their patient without violating objectivity, as preexisting therapeutic knowledge contaminates forensic judgment.
A therapist’s role is inherently advocacy-based. Their job is to believe their client’s subjective experience, to validate their feelings, and to provide a space of unconditional positive regard. Therapy is built on empathy, trust, and support, values that are vital for healing but incompatible with the detached, investigative stance required in forensic work.
A forensic psychologist, in contrast, must critically examine the credibility of statements, test competing hypotheses, and consider alternative explanations for behavior or reported symptoms. The forensic role requires skepticism and neutrality, not alliance or advocacy. Once a therapeutic bond exists, that neutrality is impossible to recover.
When a therapist crosses into a forensic role with their own patient, even with good intentions, they inevitably bring that therapeutic alliance into the evaluation. Their findings can be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by a desire to protect or support the client. This bias, however subtle, can compromise both the integrity of the evaluation and the fairness of the legal process.
For that reason, the ethical mandate is clear: a therapist should never evaluate their own client for forensic purposes, and a forensic evaluator should never treat someone they have assessed. The wall between those two roles exists to protect both the individual and the justice system.
The Role of the Forensic Expert Is Not to Treat
Forensic psychologists provide a different kind of help: clarity. We clarify complex psychological issues for judges, juries, and attorneys by grounding our opinions in data and professional standards, not emotion or advocacy.
Our work supports fairness in the legal system, but that fairness depends entirely on our objectivity. Once we step into a treatment role, that neutrality is gone.
The Risks of Blurring Roles
When a forensic psychologist becomes a treatment provider, or vice versa, the consequences can be serious:
Licensure board complaints for dual-role conflicts or boundary violations
Daubert or Frye challenges undermining expert credibility
Disqualification or exclusion of testimony
Civil liability if the dual role leads to harm or perceived bias
In other words, one poor boundary decision can compromise both the case and the psychologist’s professional standing.
Boundaries as the Foundation of Credibility
Boundaries are not barriers; they are what make our work credible. The separation between forensic and therapeutic roles protects the integrity of both. In therapy, boundaries create emotional safety and trust. In forensic work, they preserve objectivity and fairness.
When psychologists stay in their proper lanes, everyone benefits: clients receive ethical, unbiased care, attorneys and courts get reliable data, and the profession maintains its integrity. Crossing those lines might feel helpful in the moment, but it erodes the very credibility that gives our opinions weight in the first place.
The courtroom does not need another advocate; it needs an expert who can stand firmly in the evidence.
