All Webinars

This webinar will satisfy your ethics requirement.

Mental health professionals are affected by the fact that we live in an age of litigation; if  clients are dissatisfied with the outcome of an evaluation or treatment , they may file an ethics complaint or a law suit with increased frequency compared to  the past. Malpractice insurance premiums have increased by more than a factor of 10 over the past few decades.  As a result, many practitioners are “running scared”, fearful of complaints.  In point of fact, very few of these legal actions are successful; while going through them is unpleasant, if a mental health practitioner adheres to a few basic principles of risk management, the likelihood of a successful suit is vastly diminished.  This webinar will present these basic principles within a framework of the fundamental legal concepts involved,and how these concepts may be easily incorporated into practice guidelines.  Special attention will be paid to confidentiality and privilege, the nature of malpractice claims,informed consent, documentation, consultation,the most frequent areas of litigation, and concrete steps to take to minimize the risk of litigation.

The manner in which mental illness has been dealt with in the criminal justice system especially regarding capital punishment has been described as “the shame of the states. “However the death penalty is not the only area in which we see misuse of psychological theories and research. We see this frequently in such areas as competency to stand trial, the insanity defense, involuntary medication, and failure to recognize the impacts of traumatic brain injury on cognitive functioning.Many of these areas are totally ignored in the law due to two forces: sanism and pretextuality.Sanism represents a bias against mentally ill individuals much like racial or gender bias.  Pretextualism refers to performing some forensic function in a careless or slipshod manner, but presenting it to the court in a manner suggesting that it is scientifically valid.

“I found this seminar fascinating. I have taken some of Dr Shapiro's other seminars and will seek him out for others, I enjoy his approach. His real world examples are invaluable.”-Dawn Z., Social Worker, New York

This webinar is designed for those clinicians moving into forensic assessment from more traditional clinical settings. It will consider the important similarities and differences between clinical and forensic work, including critical legal and ethical issues regarding the concept of informed consent in different kinds of evaluations. The focus will then shift to what are called functional legal capacities, and cover in depth the way different assessment instruments may be reconceptualized in order to use them in forensic settings. Special consideration will be given to the development of instruments for assessment of trauma and malingering.

“I found this seminar fascinating. I have taken some of Dr Shapiro's other seminars and will seek him out for others, I enjoy his approach. His real world examples are invaluable.”-Dawn Z., Social Worker, New York

This webinar is designed for those clinicians moving into forensic assessment from more traditional clinical settings. It will consider the important similarities and differences between clinical and forensic work, including critical legal and ethical issues regarding the concept of informed consent in different kinds of evaluations. The focus will then shift to what are called functional legal capacities, and cover in depth the way different assessment instruments may be reconceptualized in order to use them in forensic settings. Special consideration will be given to the development of instruments for assessment of trauma and malingering.

Do you know the possible effect in Court of expert testimony based on poorly validated procedures? People may be sentenced to death. In similar ways, mental health professionals may be found negligent for failure to see that someone fits the psychological profile of intended victims, despite the fact that there is no science behind psychological profiling. The use and similar misuses of expert testimony will be highlighted in the webinar, along with practical suggestions for avoiding these pitfalls and making sure one’s testimony is based on well-validated theories.

Do you know the possible effect in Court of expert testimony based on poorly validated procedures? People may be sentenced to death. In similar ways, mental health professionals may be found negligent for failure to see that someone fits the psychological profile of intended victims, despite the fact that there is no science behind psychological profiling. The use and similar misuses of expert testimony will be highlighted in the webinar, along with practical suggestions for avoiding these pitfalls and making sure one’s testimony is based on well-validated theories.

“The information presented was very helpful and I feel I have a better understanding of the role of forensic psychologist and how this role differs from the psychotherapist role."-Meg R. Professional Counselor, South Carolina

This webinar will satisfy your ethics requirement.

All mental health professionals are familiar with, and should rely on, the Codes of Ethics applicable to their professionals. Some have, in addition, specialty guidelines that apply to certain areas of practice. This webinar will consist of a detailed analysis of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, viewing the similarities to and differences from the generic ethics codes. More specifically, we will look at the definitions of forensic psychology practice, issues of impartiality, conflicts of interest, competence, Informed Consent, and conflicts with legal authorities.

“The information presented was very helpful and I feel I have a better understanding of the role of forensic psychologist and how this role differs from the psychotherapist role."-Meg R. Professional Counselor, South Carolina

This webinar will satisfy your ethics requirement.

All mental health professionals are familiar with, and should rely on, the Codes of Ethics applicable to their professionals. Some have, in addition, specialty guidelines that apply to certain areas of practice. This webinar will consist of a detailed analysis of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, viewing the similarities to and differences from the generic ethics codes. More specifically, we will look at the definitions of forensic psychology practice, issues of impartiality, conflicts of interest, competence, Informed Consent, and conflicts with legal authorities.

This webinar will satisfy your ethics requirement.

Ever since 1976 with the landmark case of Tarasoff versus Regents of the University of California, there has been a dizzying array of cases dealing with various approaches to this topic. In some states, there is a Duty to Warn, in others a Duty to Protect Third Parties. In some states, the duty is mandatory and in others discretionary. Some states are also distinguished in terms of permissive or non-permissive duties. Small wonder that with all these variations, mental health professionals are often confused in terms of their obligations. Sometimes, the case law is inconsistent with the statutes within the same state. Research done regarding the knowledge of licensed men¬tal health professionals in 1988 showed that 93% of the sample surveyed did not fully understand the laws in their own states. Twenty years later, with continued exposure to the topic through continuing education, the number dropped to 76% who did not understand the laws in their own states. This webinar will attempt to reconcile these differences and provide the mental health professional with concrete steps to take in order to crystalize and under¬stand the laws and the ways to manage practices so as to minimize the risk of legal action.

This webinar will satisfy your ethics requirement.

Ever since 1976 with the landmark case of Tarasoff versus Regents of the University of California, there has been a dizzying array of cases dealing with various approaches to this topic. In some states, there is a Duty to Warn, in others a Duty to Protect Third Parties. In some states, the duty is mandatory and in others discretionary. Some states are also distinguished in terms of permissive or non-permissive duties. Small wonder that with all these variations, mental health professionals are often confused in terms of their obligations. Sometimes, the case law is inconsistent with the statutes within the same state. Research done regarding the knowledge of licensed men¬tal health professionals in 1988 showed that 93% of the sample surveyed did not fully understand the laws in their own states. Twenty years later, with continued exposure to the topic through continuing education, the number dropped to 76% who did not understand the laws in their own states. This webinar will attempt to reconcile these differences and provide the mental health professional with concrete steps to take in order to crystalize and under¬stand the laws and the ways to manage practices so as to minimize the risk of legal action.

"Excellent content - very knowledgeable and experienced presenter Greater understanding of instruments - research on just how limited our ability to predict violence is, and the ethical/scientific issues with sex violent predator laws/dynamics."-Kevin D., Psychologist, California

The ability to predict  future violent behavior has long been an issue for mental health professionals.  Initially it was merely assumed that we could make such predictions accurately based on our clinical skills alone.  Many decisions in the judicial system hinge on an accurate assessment of violence, such as  bond, probation, and parole decisions, committment to and release from psychiatric facilities, and even whether or not a defendant should be sentenced to death.

Recent research has demonstrated however that such predictions are not as accurate as once assumed and that the methodology used was sadly lacking in  validity.   A tremendous amount of research has gone into risk assessment for future  violence ; still,,  the accuracy remains in question even to this day; nevertheless, judicial decisions are continually made which ignore our limited ability to assess violent behavior.

This webinar will explore  the factors necessary to do competent work in this area and demonstrate the ways that risk assessment can become more precise.

"Excellent content - very knowledgeable and experienced presenter Greater understanding of instruments - research on just how limited our ability to predict violence is, and the ethical/scientific issues with sex violent predator laws/dynamics."-Kevin D., Psychologist, California

The ability to predict  future violent behavior has long been an issue for mental health professionals.  Initially it was merely assumed that we could make such predictions accurately based on our clinical skills alone.  Many decisions in the judicial system hinge on an accurate assessment of violence, such as  bond, probation, and parole decisions, committment to and release from psychiatric facilities, and even whether or not a defendant should be sentenced to death.

Recent research has demonstrated however that such predictions are not as accurate as once assumed and that the methodology used was sadly lacking in  validity.   A tremendous amount of research has gone into risk assessment for future  violence ; still,,  the accuracy remains in question even to this day; nevertheless, judicial decisions are continually made which ignore our limited ability to assess violent behavior.

This webinar will explore  the factors necessary to do competent work in this area and demonstrate the ways that risk assessment can become more precise.