Naming a Mental Health Practice: Legal Restrictions and Free Speech

When mental health professionals open a private practice or develop a new agency, one of the most exciting decisions is choosing a name for their new entity. Ideally, titles for mental health organizations should be clear, succinct, accurate, memorable, and professional. They should also be legal: that is, they should not violate state or federal laws.

Historically, there have not been many cases requiring mental health organizations to change their names. However, in Alleman et al. v. Harness et al. (2024), the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists informed the Psychological Wellness Institute that it was in violation of state law by using the word “psychological” in its business name. The primary mental health providers at this institute were a licensed professional counselor, a licensed marriage and family therapist, and a licensed addiction counselor. The Board suggested that it was misleading to use the name “psychological” in the business name because none of these providers were licensed psychologists. The providers changed their organization’s name to P. Wellness Institute to avoid prosecution. They then filed an action to enable them to change their name back to Psychological Wellness Institute, purporting that this title accurately describes their services. This court case has yet to be decided. This case does, however, raise significant questions for mental health providers regarding what terms they may use to entitle or describe their practice.

Underlying Issues

The primary issue in dispute in Alleman et al. v. Harness et al. is whether using the term “psychological wellness” in a business name violates Louisiana laws that prohibit people who are not licensed as psychologists to represent themselves as psychologists or to engage in the practice of psychology. Many states have similar “title protection laws,” laws that restrict the use of certain terms related to specific licensed mental health professionals, including licensed psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, and licensed family and marriage therapists. Different states protect different titles, so terms prohibited in one state may not be prohibited in another state.

The basic purpose of title protection laws is to protect the public, including people who may be seeking services from a particular type of professional and may be confused when people without the specific training and credentials that they are seeking are using similar titles or descriptions for their services. Title protection laws align with ethical values such as honesty and integrity (American Counseling Association, 2014; American Psychological Association, 2017; National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Mental health professionals should represent their professional roles, education, and services accurately, and should avoid representations that may mislead the public or particular clients.

The plaintiffs in the Alleman case argue that they are being honest about the nature of the services that they provide. They purport that although they are not psychologists, they have training related to psychology and that their services are designed to promote psychological wellness. Don’t all mental health professionals assist clients with psychological pain and conditions? The plaintiffs also assert their constitutional right to free expression, which includes how they title their organization (Center for Individual Rights, 2024).

When the court deals with this case, it may focus on whether the title “Psychological Wellness Institute” actually violates state laws, particularly in light of the fact that the providers do not specifically state that they are psychologists or that they provide psychological services. More broadly, is this language misleading to the public, and what harm might be done to particular clients or the profession of psychology if nonpsychologists can use this term to describe their practice? The court may also consider whether state laws violate constitutionally protected free speech, or if they provide a reasonable limitation on free speech in the interests of protecting the public.

Implications and Suggestions

Regardless of how the Alleman case is decided, it serves as a reminder that mental health professionals should consider title protection and licensing laws when determining what names to use for their practice organizations, as well as how they describe their services to clients and the public. A risk-conscious approach might suggest steering clear of any language that might be perceived as inaccurate, misleading, or potentially in violation of title protection and licensing laws in the states where they offer services. Thus, social workers may be wise to avoid referring to their services as “psychological” services, and family and marriage therapists may be wise to avoid calling their services “social work.”

Of course, there are many practice organizations that employ various types of mental health professionals, as well as nonlicensed human service providers. Such organizations should be clear about which types of providers they employ and, perhaps, provide guidance about how the services of different types of professionals within their organization may differ. Clarity and honesty in these regards not only promote trust and fully informed consent with clients but also mitigate risks of criminal charges and licensing board investigations.

As for free speech, yes, everyone has a right to free speech. Many people use terms such as psychology, counseling, and social work freely, without necessarily thinking that these terms apply only to specifically licensed professionals (Center for Individual Rights, 2024). Still, mental health professionals owe a special duty to their clients and the public to be honest and clear about their professional qualifications and the services they offer.