Ethical Guidelines and Principles

Intended Beneficiary of the Forensic Product or Service

A critical aspect of ethical practice is the clarification of the forensic task(s) to be provided and the acquisition of informed consent from the intended recipient(s) of those services, which should occur prior to providing forensic services. This includes clarification of at least the following areas:

• What is the forensic psychological service being requested?
• What is the risk-benefit analysis for any recipient or client receiving or not receiving the service?
• What is the product of this service?
• Who is the direct recipient of provision of this service?
• Who is the retaining client for this service?
• Who is the ultimate beneficiary of this service?

Forensic psychological service most commonly refers to any service that is undertaken for the purpose of, or with the anticipation of, assisting a third-party decision maker or trier of fact. This may refer to services provided at the request of an attorney, judge, or court order, as well as other third parties such as an insurance company, licensing board, employer, parole board, or other administrative body, or pursuant to applicable law, statute, or contract. Forensic psychological services may include multiple elements, such as a record review, psychological testing, clinical interviews, collateral interviews, and a review of current professional literature. Or such services may be narrower in scope, such as providing consultation to an attorney by reviewing relevant records and summarizing applicable professional literature. What usually defines a service as forensic is the fact that it is undertaken for the purpose of providing psychological information about a party to a third party, generally in the context of an adjudicative decision-making process.

It is important to note that a service that was not originally intended for the purpose of assisting a thirdparty decision maker is not usually considered a forensic psychological service, even if it is eventually used as evidence in a decision-making process. For example, a psychologist who has provided treatment to a criminal offender may be called on to testify at the parole board hearing; but in doing so, the psychologist is not providing a forensic service (as the primary purpose of therapy is to help the offender and not to assist a third-party decision maker), and the psychological testimony would be provided within the role of therapist-expert as opposed to a forensic expert. Whether or not such information is ultimately of use to a thirdparty decision maker is a separate issue from whether the work was undertaken for that purpose.

...