ABSTRACT
Forensic activity and clinical practice appear to be as compatible as oil and vinegar. The entire notion of forensic therapy itself is an oxymoron. The inherent conflict between serving in a forensic versus a therapeutic capacity has been recognized throughout the maturation of forensic mental health work. Detailed examination of the related ethical pitfalls and the contraindications of seeking to function simultaneously in both roles are readily available (APA, 1994; Foote & Goodman-Delahunty, 2004). The very posture of the provider and his or her objectives are defined in a categorically discrepant fashion depending on whether the services are of a forensic or clinical nature. Forensic practice at its core essentially involves a posture of objectivity, emotional detachment, and expertise with respect to the resolution of a legal matter. Forensic practice can include either criminal or civil law and can require any of a number of forms of examination by the practitioner. Clinical practice, in contrast, regards examination of presenting concerns, rapport building, and formulation of a treatment plan based on goals for resolving mental health difficulties through the provision of intervention and treatment services. The objectivity necessary of a forensic examiner is clearly obviated by the basic and essential elements of clinical work. Hence, clinical practitioners are wary to engage in forensic activity with cases in which they are providing therapeutic services.
