Can Clients Upset With Evaluations Sue for Defamation?

When mental health professionals (MHPs) provide written psychological or psychosocial evaluations, clients may not always agree with the facts or opinions expressed in the report. In cases where clients believe these statements are not only inaccurate but also damaging to their reputation, they might consider suing the MHP for defamation. This post explores the legal hurdles that clients face when pursuing such claims. It also explores what a court would require to find an MHP liable for defamation. Spoiler alert: Successful defamation lawsuits against MHPs are exceptionally rare. Please keep reading to discover why this is the case and to learn strategies for minimizing the risk of such claims in your own practice.

What Is Defamation?

Defamation is a civil cause of action in which a client sues someone for making a false statement that they claim has hurt their reputation. Defamation may be either an oral statement (slander) or a written or recorded statement (libel). To prove defamation, a plaintiff would need to prove:

1. The defendant publicly communicated a statement about the defendant that was false.
2. The statement was presented as a fact, not an opinion.
3. In making the false statement, the defendant acted negligently (not exercising reasonable care) or with actual malice (knowing the statement was false or recklessly disregarding the truth).
4. The statement caused harm to the person’s reputation (which could include effects on the person’s professional standing or personal relationships). (Legal Information Institute, 2023.)

Defamation has recently become a topic of public discussion in light of upcoming Senate hearings concerning the incoming president's nominations for several federal cabinet positions. Reports indicate that threats have been made against potential witnesses who may present evidence that could damage the nominees' reputations and hinder their chances of Senate approval. While this post primarily explores defamation lawsuits involving mental health professionals, it is important to understand the broader implications of defamation in other contexts.

Defamation by a Mental Health Professional

Consider an MHP who dislikes a client and writes a blog post stating that the client sexually assaulted children and should be fired from their job as an elementary school teacher. If the MHP knew the statement was false and the client lost their job, this would be a clear example of defamation. This public statement was knowingly false and it directly led to damages incurred by the client. For MHPs who maintain client confidentiality and who take reasonable care to provide honest evaluations, the risks of being held liable for defamation are low.

Still, MHPs should be aware of possible situations when a client might consider suing them for defamation. Consider an MHP acting as a parenting plan (custody) evaluator. If the MHP’s evaluation identifies negative characteristics about one parent, that parent may believe that the information in the report is false and that their reputation has been hurt by false information. If they are denied custody or time with their child, they might believe that the MHP should be liable for ruining their reputation and causing them harm. In defense, the MHP could provide evidence that their information was valid and that they acted in good faith (without malice). In addition, the MHP might have “qualified immunity,” a legal status protecting professionals acting in a quasi-judicial role from being sued. As long as the MHP has acted without malice or bias, an MHP should not be held liable for defamation, even if their evaluation caused harm to a client’s reputation.

Now, consider a scenario where a client needs a favorable psychological evaluation to qualify for a particular job. If the evaluation is negative and the client perceives it as unfair, they may contemplate suing the evaluator. To succeed in such a case, the client would need to prove not only that the statements in the evaluation were false and harmful, but also that the MHP acted improperly. This could include showing that the MHP knowingly made false statements, acted with malice, or conducted the evaluation negligently—for example, by failing to use accepted methods or professional standards typically required for such assessments.

Mitigating Risks

The risk of being sued for defamation when providing evaluations can be minimized by adhering to widely accepted ethical standards: honesty, competence, confidentiality, and respect (American Counseling Association, 2014; American Psychological Association, 2017; National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Before conducting an evaluation, ensure that you have adequate training, supervision, and expertise specific to the type of assessment being performed. Employ evidence-based practices in both the evaluation process and the preparation of the report. Clearly document the sources of your information and explain how the data you collected supports your professional conclusions.

Maintain strict confidentiality. Do not share the evaluation in any public forum unless authorized by the client or required by the court. Consider the ethical and legal implications of sharing the results of an evaluation privately with the client before presenting it to the court or other parties (Barsky, 2024). This approach can allow both you and the client to discuss the contents of the report. It may also provide the client an opportunity to address concerns before the evaluation becomes public. For example, the client may opt to resolve matters privately through negotiation, or withdraw from a job application process to prevent public disclosure.

Law and Crime Essential Reads

A Mind-Mapping Technique to Find the Missing

Mental Health Law Adds to New York Budget Stalemate

Finally, if you have any questions about the potential legal implications of your evaluation, seek guidance from an attorney. Taking these steps can reduce the likelihood of legal complications and enhance the quality and professionalism of your work.