Negligence in academic advising and abortion counseling: courts rulings and implications. (Special issue: legal and ethical issues in school counseling).

Navigating the legal and ethical waters of any profession can be daunting but the waters are especially murky in a human service profession such as counseling. When you add to the complications of counseling individuals clients who are minors in schools, the potential for legal and ethical dilemmas multiply. School counselors' legal and ethical work with minors involves value-laden subjects (e.g., abortion), safety issues (e.g., harassment), and life-threatening concerns (e.g., suicide). There is the inescapable fact that a school counselor's client extends beyond the student to include parents, teachers, administrators, the school district, and the community. The confluence of this multiplicity of responsibility to parents and others (and a setting whose mission and function is to deliver academic instruction) flows together to make the legal and ethical world of school counseling a complex one to negotiate.

The setting in which school counselors work is the most defining and confining characteristic for school counselors when they enter into a counseling relationship with students. Personal or emotional counseling for minors in schools brings immediate tension between the student's right to privacy and the parent's right to be the guiding force in their children's emotional development (Fisher & Sorenson, 1996; Isaacs & Stone, 1999; Kaplan, 1996; Remley & Herlihy, 2001; Salo & Shumate, 1993).

The multifaceted nature of working with minors in schools makes it impossible to develop policy for all the potential variables and situations faced by school counselors. Although there is legal guidance such as legislation and school board policy, school counselors often have to practice without clear guidelines. Occasionally, the legal obligations of school counselors are underscored by court cases.

Two court cases are presented in this article to illuminate school counselors' legal responsibilities in academic advising and abortion counseling. However, it is important to note that court decisions are based on a particular set of facts, and the law of a particular state or area of the country is applied. They do not fully define school counselors' legal obligations as professionals practicing in a particular jurisdiction. These cases are presented to show how appellate court decisions can guide and inform future decision making in a variety of potential malpractice situations.

It is highly unusual for a school counselor to be sued (Parrott, 2001; Remley & Herlihy, 2001; Stone, 2001; Zirkel, 2001a). These court cases are discussed not to disturb peace-of-mind, as that would be an over reaction, but to inform future practice and to equip professionals to exercise even greater care for their minor students.

Negligence

Negligence is a civil wrong or, in legal terms, a tort in which one person breaches a duty to another (Remley & Herlihy, 2001; Valente, 1998). A criminal wrong is a crime against society, whereas a civil wrong is a breach of another's individual rights. A civil wrong causes damages or injury that may be physical, emotional, or monetary, and plaintiffs seek compensation. Malpractice is a civil wrong and is an area of tort law that refers to negligent practice in the rendering of professional services (Remley & Herlihy; Valente). As a general legal principle, civil liability for negligence will accrue if a school counselor is found to owe a duty to another person, breaches that duty by not living up to expected standards, and as a result of the breach of duty, causes damages to another person. According to Prosser (1971), all four of the following elements must be present for negligence to be proven:

* A duty was owed by the school counselor to a student or parent/guardian of a student.

* The duty owed was breached.

* There was a sufficient legal causal connection between the breach of duty and the injury.

* Some injury or damages were suffered.

Negligence has been judicially rejected in the vast majority of cases against school counselors and other educators in the area of educational advising and personal counseling (Fisher & Sorenson, 1996; Gladding, Remley, & Huber, 2001). Courts have been reluctant to determine that a school counselor has a duty as a matter of law to give accurate academic advice or inform parents when their child is considering abortion (Fisher & Sorenson; Gladding et al.). Since no duty is owed, then liability for negligence cannot be imposed. The two court cases discussed in this article represent a departure from previous rulings, in that the courts found that the counselors owed a duty and in one case, the court found that the counselor breached the duty owed (Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, 1989; Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001).

Malpractice is failure to render professional service and the test for failure is determined by what is known as the standard of care or the expected standard of the profession (Cottone & Tarvydas, 1998; Prosser, 1971). Standard of care is determined by evidence of what a reasonable counselor would have done in a similar situation. The opinion of professional experts is usually used to establish the standard of care. Using standard of care as the framework, the court will decide if the school counselor acted as the reasonably competent professional would have under the same or similar circumstances (Cottone & Tarvydas).

In most states with regard to negligence or civil liability, individual employees are protected from personal liability if they are not acting in a willful or wanton way. Most states have legislation declaring that public employers must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless any employee who is named in a civil suit for an act of omission arising out of the employee's job (Collins, 2001). Further, according to these statutes, the employee cannot be fired because of an unintentional act that has harmful effects. This obligation does not extend to criminal acts or acts where the employee is intentionally harmful.

Negligence in Academic Advising

Until 2001, no jurisdiction had recognized that negligence could occur in the context of a school counselor giving academic advice to a student (Zirkel, 2001a). In reversing a lower court's decision and remanding the case to trial, the Iowa Supreme Court in Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2001) determined that a duty was owed by a school counselor in this situation to advise a student with due care and attention.

Bruce Sain, a senior in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was a talented all-state basketball player. In 1996, he was awarded a 5-year basketball scholarship to Northern Illinois University. In the summer prior to his freshman year, Sain was notified in a letter that he did not meet the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) regulations for incoming freshman athletes at Division I schools. The letter explained that he fell one-third credit short in the required English credits because his one-third English credit in Technical Communications was not on the list of classes his high school submitted to the NCAA for approval. Sain lost his scholarship and his family filed suit against the Cedar Rapids School District citing the school district as negligent and the school counselor, Larry Bowen, as guilty of negligent misrepresentation in his role as an academic advisor (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001). How did a scholarship opportunity for Bruce Sain turn into shambles and how did Larry Bowen find himself at the center of a lawsuit?

Larry Bowen was Bruce Sain's school counselor at Jefferson High School. Sain, who was in his senior year, needed three trimesters of English. Sain was dissatisfied with the second trimester English course and asked Bowen to place him in another English class. Bowen suggested Technical Communications and explained to Sain that it was being offered at the school for the first time but that the Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse would approve the high school course. Without further concern, Sain completed Technical Communications and graduated in the spring of 1996 with the prospect of a 5-year scholarship at Northern Illinois University. Then the letter arrived from the NCAA Clearinghouse declaring Sain ineligible based on academic grounds. Sain and Jefferson High School requested reconsideration from the NCAA but their request for a waiver was denied (Parrott, 2001; Reid, 2001; Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001; Zirkel, 2001a).

With his scholarship offer voided, Sain turned to the courts. Sain filed suit against the NCAA (which he dropped shortly thereafter) and the school district (not the school counselor) claiming negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Negligence was alleged in that the course, Technical Communications, was never submitted to the NCAA for approval. Suitability of the course was not at issue as Technical Communications had been approved for other schools as a core English course, but the problem was that it had not been approved for Jefferson High School because the school had not included it on the list that is annually submitted to NCAA Clearinghouse for approval. Negligent misrepresentation was claimed because Bowen gave out erroneous information by telling Sain that the course would be approved and that he was safe to take Technical Communications (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001).

The trial court initially rejected Sain's suit. Courts have received a number of educational malpractice lawsuits, but continually side with school districts, rejecting the notion that school counselors owe a duty to a student to give competent academic advice (Fisher & Sorenson, 1996; Gladding et al., 2001). Courts recognize how difficult the role of academic advisor is for school counselors who are routinely required to manage large numbers of students, constantly changing rules and regulations, and fluctuating admissions and financial aid criteria. Courts have therefore been reluctant to determine that a duty is owed in the academic advising arena (Fisher & Sorenson; Gladding et al.). Sain appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court which remanded the case for trial (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001).

It is important to note that the Iowa Supreme Court did not determine whether the school district was negligent, that was left for the lower court to decide. Rather, the state Supreme Court found that the claim of "negligent misrepresentation" possibly had merit and should not have been dismissed by the lower court. On the first count, the court determined that in this case negligence did not apply to the failure to submit the Technical Communications course for approval. The court said that negligence applies only to the disclosure of information and that failure to disclose information did not meet the criteria for negligence (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001; Zirkel, 2001a). The Iowa Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court for trial on the count of negligent misrepresentation.

Justice Mark Cady of the Iowa Supreme Court wrote for the 5 to 2 majority that school counselors can be held accountable for providing accurate information to students about credits and courses needed to pursue post-high school goals (Parrott, 2001; Reid, 2001). The erroneous advice given by the counselor was equated to negligent misrepresentation in professions such as accounting, the law, and others whose businesses require that they give accurate and appropriate information (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001; Zirkel, 2001a). The court determined that school counselors have a similar business relationship of giving accurate advice to students when the student has a need to know. The court explained that just as accountants and lawyers stand to gain financially from giving accurate advice, so do school counselors, since that is what they are paid to do. Therefore, negligent misrepresentation may be applied to the school counselor-student relationship when erroneous advice means a student loses a lucrative scholarship. This kind of lawsuit is more business related than academic and, according to the Iowa Supreme Court, is a classic case of negligent misrepresentation (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District; Zirkel).

The court found that school counselors must use reasonable care in providing specific information to a student when (a) the counselor has knowledge of the specific need for the information; (b) the counselor provides the information to the student in the course of a counselor/student relationship; and (c) the student reasonably relies upon the information in circumstances where the counselor knows or should know of the student's reliance (Zirkel, 2001a). Bowen claims never to have had a conversation with Sain about NCAA course eligibility which Sain disputes. When the case is heard in the lower court, a judge or jury will decide who to believe.

Justice Linda K. Neuman, speaking on behalf of the minority, wrote that the Iowa Supreme court's decision "spells disaster for the law," explaining that the decision will open the "floodgates" and could be applied broadly to students in a variety of situations and not just athletes who need counsel on NCAA rules (Reid, 2001, p. 3). Judge Neuman noted that the decision exalts logic over experience or, in other words, it appears logical that school counselors should give correct advice, but the reality of the expectations on school counselors makes this impossible. School counselors cannot have a command of everything there is to know about colleges and universities, admissions requirements, NCAA rules, financial aid and scholarships, and a multitude of other facts that change daily. In other words, the fear the two minority opinion Supreme Court judges were expressing is that a student can sue when he or she misses admission to Yale because they were not advised that there is a requirement of four sciences and took only three. Judge Neuman wrote, "Instead of encouraging sound academic guidance, today's decision will discourage advising altogether" (Reid, p. 3).

In its opinion by the majority, the court acknowledged that the ruling could have a "chilling effect" on academic advising by school counselors (Reid, 2001, p. 3). However, the court cautioned that the ruling should have limited effect as negligent representation is confined to students whose reliance on information is reasonable (e.g., an inquiry as to whether a course meets NCAA eligibility), and that the school counselor must be aware of how vital the information is to the student. This explanation was intended to comfort school counselors and to keep them from over reacting to the principles outlined by the Sain case (Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001).

The Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2001) case involved the controversial overturning of a lower court's decision to dismiss a case of negligent misrepresentation against a school district that involved a school counselor who allegedly gave erroneous advice. The case was never heard by the lower court as it was settled before going to trial (P. Zirkel, personal communication, April 1, 2002). However, the findings of the Iowa Supreme Court in remanding the case to trial serve as a caution to the school counseling profession about providing accurate advice which could have an impact on a student's future financial opportunities. It is unusual for a tort claim of this nature to proceed to court (Parrott, 2001). By breaking with tradition, the Iowa Supreme Court has reinterpreted the nature of the student-school counselor relationship. The claim of negligent misrepresentation is akin to claims filed against lawyers and accountants when they give erroneous advice. School counselors can benefit by knowing that negligent misrepresentation is a possibility, albeit remote, and can heighten their resolve to stay current in the arena of academic advising. School counselors cannot be held to unreasonable standards and the courts are reluctant to impose unreasonable duties on educators. This case was a rare departure from the tradition of holding school counselors harmless in being all things to all persons. The message for school counselors is to continue to actively pursue their role as an academic advisor as it is paramount, and to exercise a good faith effort to give accurate advice.

Recommendations for School Counselors

The following are recommendations for school counselors in the role of academic advisor:

1. Continue to offer academic advising sessions to students. The Sain ruling should not deter the active pursuit of the role of career and academic advising, a role that has the greatest opportunity for implementing a social justice agenda to level the playing field for students. School counselors are needed to close the information gap between those students who know what they need to do to successfully access postsecondary education that leads to wider economic opportunities and those students who have not received even the most basic information. Students who do not have a significant adult in their lives helping them understand how to access and be successful in postsecondary opportunities need the school counselor to be the advocate who helps close the information gap. Remember, the district was sued, not the school counselor. It is unlikely that school counselors will have to face monetary liability in their work. The almost nonexistent chance of negligent misrepresentation should not deter academic advising.

2. Act as the reasonably competent professional would. If faced with a lawsuit, school counselors who practice with care and caution will pass the standard of care test. The courts are not asking for extraordinary care, only reasonable care. Ethics help professionals aspire to extraordinary care, but the courts do not demand this level. By exercising skill and care in every action taken as a professional, school counselors can demonstrate that they are behaving as a reasonably competent professional.

3. Stay abreast of the information needed for competent academic advising. It is important to be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of procedures, policies, laws, ethical standards, and the school district's policies. By seeking professional development in the area of academic advising from many resources such as the school district, counseling organizations, and literature, school counselors are demonstrating a good-faith effort to stay informed.

4. Empower others to take responsibility for having and giving the right information. For example, coaches could be in charge of advising students about NCAA regulations, and students could be encouraged to learn to become their own advocate in gathering information about college admissions, scholarships, and financial aid. Students can be taught to become their own advocate through classroom guidance lessons in the computer lab, where students learn Internet searches so they can seek information on their own. As a manager of resources, school counselors can equip others to be a key presence in the career and academic advising roles.

5. Publicize widely academic information for all students and parents. Newsletters, form letters, and e-mail list serves could help in the advising role and demonstrate a proactive stance to disseminating critical, timely information.

6. Require that students and parents sign off when they have been given critical information. For example, when seniors are given their personal credit check for their remaining graduation requirements, the school counselor can have them sign an acknowledgment that they have been told and understand what they need to do.

7. Consult when appropriate. Best practice for school counselors is to always consult whenever they are unsure. School counselors never stand alone unless they fail to consult with others who are in a position to help.

Negligence in Abortion Counseling

The legal and ethical complications of working with minors in schools pose daily dilemmas and never more so than value-laden issues such as abortion, which involves a family's religious beliefs, values about sexual conduct, and parental rights to be the guiding voice in their children's lives and other rights. Respecting students' confidences requires school counselors to balance the rights of minors with the rights of their parents (Isaacs & Stone, 2001; Kaplan, 1996). Legal rulings and the Ethical Standards for School Counselors (American School Counselor Association, 1998) offer suggestions and guidance in the complexities of confidentiality. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the school counselor to determine the appropriate response for individual students who put their trust in the security of the counseling relationship.

School counselors need to be advocates and a source of strength for the individual student who comes to them for help in confronting and dealing with areas such as sexual activity and abortion. Under what circumstances might a counselor be held liable for giving abortion advice? In Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County (1989), Jane and John, two high school students, filed suit along with their parents against the School District of Escambia County, Alabama, alleging that the school counselor, Kay Rose, and the Assistant Principal, Melvin Powell, coerced and assisted Jane in getting an abortion. Further, the accusation was that Powell paid someone $20 to drive Jane to the abortion clinic and that Powell and Rose hired Jane and John to perform menial tasks to earn money for the abortion. John, the father of the baby, and Jane claimed that their constitutional rights were violated including involuntary servitude and free exercise of religion. The parents claimed that their privacy rights were violated when they were not informed by the school counselor and assistant principal that Jane was pregnant and when school officials urged the students not to tell their parents. The trial court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs appealed (Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County; Zirkel, 2001b).

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the decision of the trial court and found Jane's privacy claim and both students' religious claim as worthy of further consideration by the courts. In other words, if Jane and John's religion prohibited abortion, and Rose and Powell coerced Jane and John to proceed with Jane's abortion, then their constitutionally protected right of freedom of religion might have been violated. Further, Jane's constitutionally protected right to choose to carry or abort a pregnancy had been violated if she was coerced into having an abortion. Jane's parents claimed that their privacy rights were violated when the school counselor and assistant principal coerced Jane into having an abortion and urged her and John to refrain from discussing with a parent whether or not Jane should have an abortion. The case was remanded back to the lower court for a trial to take place (Zirkel).

In fact finding, the trial court found that Jane visited a physician who confirmed she was pregnant and provided her with abortion information upon her request. John and Jane told Rose that they did not want their parents to know about the pregnancy as they were not supposed to be seeing each other and that Jane left home because she was being abused by her stepfather. Rose presented various alternatives but the students rejected all alternatives except abortion. Rose repeatedly urged Jane and John to consult with their parents. Rose reported the alleged abuse by the stepfather to the Department of Human Resources, who sent a representative to meet with Jane. The representative urged Jane to consult with her mother and offered alternatives such as foster care and adoption. When Jane rejected all alternatives, the representative assisted Jane in trying to obtain financial assistance and Medicaid. Jane and John said they felt pressured to have an abortion by Rose when she asked them how they planned to care for the baby and where they were going to take the baby. During the process of discovery, Jane admitted that Rose's questions were good, that she alone made the decision to have an abortion, and that she was not coerced by Rose or Powell. John admitted that he had chosen not to tell his mother. The trial court concluded that the students were not deprived of their free will, had chosen to obtain an abortion, had chosen not to tell their parents, and that there was no coercion on the part of school officials (Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, 1989; Zirkel, 1991; 2001b).

After the Arnold ruling, the question remains: May counselors be held liable for giving abortion advice to pregnant minors? Counselors in the course of fulfilling their job responsibilities may assist students with value-laden issues such as abortion if they are competent to give such advice and if they proceed in a professional manner. School counselors must consider that their responsibilities extend beyond the student to parents and guardians and take great care in abortion counseling. Fisher and Sorenson (1996) stated:

   If an immature, emotionally fragile young girl procures an abortion with
   the help of a counselor, under circumstances where reasonably competent
   counselors would have notified the parents or would have advised against
   the abortion, liability for psychological or physical suffering may follow.
   The specific facts and circumstances must always be considered. (p. 60)

Complicated, value-laden counseling requires that the school counselor assess the developmental age of the student and the ability of the student to make informed, sound decisions. School counselors must continually ask themselves what the reasonably competent professional would do under similar circumstances. Consider if Jane had been 13 years old. Would Rose have responded differently? Stadler's (1990) test of universality is a good gauge, because the test asks the professional to consider the advice they would give to a colleague who is in the throes of a similar ethical dilemma. If the school counselor would advise a colleague to take a different path, then this begs the counselor to further examine his or her proposed actions. Perhaps the counselor is planning action that is too conservative, too risky, or outside the bounds of what the reasonably competent professional would do.

Can school boards adopt a policy forbidding school counselors to engage in any discussions with their students about contraception, abortion, or sexual activity? School boards can (any some do) adopt policies forbidding counselors to address certain topics or instructing them to immediately call parents if such topics are brought up by their students. However, in the absence of a school board policy expressly forbidding counselors to discuss abortion, school counselors can discuss the topic with students. A school counselor must be ready to argue that they behaved as the reasonably competent professional would have. Coercion and imposing one's values on a minor student would not be appropriate actions of a reasonable and professional school counselor.

Recommendations for School Counselors

The following are recommendations for the school counselor when counseling students in the area of sexuality or abortion:

1. Know your school board policy. School counselors can sometimes find guidance in school board policy and must adhere to policy. School counselors behaving as advocates work appropriately to change policies that they believe have an adverse impact on students.

2. Consider developmental issues when making decisions. When working with minors on value-laden issues, it is especially important to consider the chronological and developmental level of the minor in order to determine whether an intervention(s) is needed and how much is required. School counselors promote the autonomy and independence of a minor and carefully consider how much they need to support a student to make his or her own decisions without interference or breach of confidentiality. Primary to the counselor's decision making is the seriousness of a minor's behavior in the framework of his or her developmental milestones and the minor's history of making informed decisions (Stone, 2001).

3. Consider the impact of the school setting and parental rights. Parental rights are more complicated when a minor is in a school setting, since parents send minors to school for academics, not for personal counseling. Therefore, when a minor seeks counseling in a value-laden area such as abortion, which may be related to the parents' religious beliefs or rights to be the guiding voice in their children's lives, consideration must be given to the wishes of parents. The onus is not on the school counselor to know the religious beliefs of every student and his or her family. However, if a student confides that religion is at issue or if the counselor learns this from another source, then it is appropriate that this information be considered when determining how to proceed with the student.

4. Consider diversity issues. Each decision for ethical dilemmas must be made in context and must consider a minor's ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual identity.

5. Consult with a supervisor or respected colleague, examining the good and bad consequences of each course of action, striving to minimize the risk to the student while respecting the inherent rights of parents. It is ethical, lawful, and beneficial to inform and consult with supervisors and colleagues. After the school counselor implements a course of action, it is important to process the results to strengthen the probability of appropriate decisions in the future.

6. Know yourself and your values. School counselors will want to understand their own values in sensitive areas such as abortion and understand the impact of those values on their ability to act in the best interest of their students. Professionals know they cannot leave their values out of their work, but they use caution when their values can inappropriately interfere with promoting a student's autonomy. School counselors will want to refer students to a colleague when they can no longer be effective.

7. Avoid involvement in a student's medical care. Referring students to birth control clinics should be avoided, and a school counselor should never agree to take students for any kind of medical procedure, especially a procedure as controversial as abortion.

Summary

School counselors regularly face ethical dilemmas of confidentiality for which there are few definitive answers. The American School Counselor Association (1998) provides guidelines for ethical behavior, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the school counselor to negotiate the rights and privileges of students and parents with regard to disclosing information to parents (Stone, 2001). Difficult decisions involving value-laden issues must always be made against the backdrop of parental rights.

Parents are continually vested by the courts with legal rights to guide their children (Bellotti v. Baird, 1979; H.L. v. Matheson, 1980). According to the Ethical Standards for School Counselors (American School Counselor Association, 1998), school counselors have a primary obligation and loyalty to students, but parents need to be involved as appropriate. Community standards, a counselor's own personal values, school board policy, and the school setting all contribute to the complex nature of working with minors in schools.

School counselors need to become constant consumers of legal and ethical information, seeking reference materials, and attending legal and ethical workshops and university courses. Court decisions can be valuable guides in the practice of school counseling, and professionals will want to stay current regarding court rulings that affect their practice. Seeking supervision and consultation with other professionals is the best defense in the complex world of legal and ethical concerns for minors in a school setting. School counselors can take comfort that they never stand alone legally and ethically if they seek guidance from fellow professionals.

References

American School Counselor Association. (1998). Ethical standards for school counselors. Retrieved December 12, 2001 from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.cfm?L1=1&L2=15

Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, 880 F. 2d 305 (Alabama 1989) Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).

Collins, K. L. (2001). Guidance counselor liability for "negligent representation." Retrieved December 12, 2001, from http://www. sai-iowa.org/901Report.html

Cottone, R., & Tarvydas, V. (1998). Ethical and professional issues in counseling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Fischer, L., & Sorenson, G. P. (1996). School law for counselors, psychologists, and social workers (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Gladding, S., Remley, T. P., Jr., & Huber, C. (2001). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in the practice of marriage and family therapy (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

H. L. Etc., Appellant v. Scott M. Matheson, 101 S. Ct. 2727 (1980).

Isaacs, M. L., & Stone, C. (1999). School counselors and confidentiality: Factors affecting professional choices. Professional School Counseling, 2, 258-266.

Isaacs, M. L., & Stone, C. (2001). Confidentiality with minors: How mental health counselors manage dangerous behaviors. The Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23, 342-356.

Kaplan, L. (1996). Outrageous or legitimate concerns: What some parents are saying about school counseling. The School Counselor, 43, 165-170.

Parrott, J. (2001, July 9). Are advisors risking lawsuits for misadvising students? The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal. Retrieved January 20, 2002, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/

Prosser, W. (1971). The law of torts. St. Paul, MN: West.

Reid, K. (2001, May 2). Iowa's high court holds counselors liable. Education Week. Retrieved January 20, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=33guide.h20

Remley, T. P., Jr., & Herlihy, B. (2001). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 626 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 2001).

Salo, M. M., & Shumate, S. G. (1993). Counseling minor clients. The ACA Legal Series, 4, 73-78.

Stadler, H. A. (1990). Confidentiality. In B. Herlihy & I. B. Golden (Eds.), AACD ethical standards-casebook (4th ed., pp. 102-110). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Stone, C. (Speaker). (2001). Legal and ethical issues in working with minors in schools [Film]. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Valente, W. (1998). Law in the schools (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Zirkel, P. (1991). End of story. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 640-642.

Zirkel, P. (2001a). Ill advised. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 98-99.

Zirkel, P. (2001b). A pregnant pause? Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 557-558.

Carolyn Stone, Ed.D., is an associate professor, College of Education and Human Services, University of North Florida, Jacksonville. E-mail: [e-mail]