March 2023: Lee Adams, Reference No 00928321
Allegations
In the allegations below, ‘the Complainant’ refers to [ . . . ].
Allegation 1
1.1 The Member provided counselling services to the Complainant from July to December Year 1.
1.2 On one or more occasions, in therapy sessions, the Member made inappropriate comments and or acted sexually towards the Complainant, by:
(i) asking her about her marital relationship;
(ii) saying ‘imagine me and you were on the couch, and I was stroking your feet’;
(iii) saying ‘if you want a hug from me, you can always ask me for one.’
(iv) stating that he had a lot of love for the Complainant;
(v) stating that the Complainant’s [ . . . ] was ‘was getting off to pixels on a screen’ instead of her;
(vi) saying that the Complainant must be ‘sexually, emotionally and mentally frustrated’;
(vii) saying ‘I guess this is why people have affairs’;
(viii) telling the Complainant she was beautiful;
(ix) complimenting the Complainant on her eye make-up.
1.3 Between July and December Year 1, the Member failed to maintain professional boundaries in that he:
(i) told the Complainant that his [ . . . ] said he was different to other men;
(ii) described to the Complainant how he resolved issues in his relationship with his [ . . . ] , by sitting down, wrapping their legs around one another and reassuringly saying ‘I’m not going anywhere, but let’s talk about this...’
(iii) told the Complainant about having sex with his [ . . . ];
(iv) extended the Complainant’s sessions to 2 or 2.5 hours for no additional charge;
(v) that his [ . . . ];
(vi) bought the Complainant a throw as a gift.
1.4 On 3 December Year 1, after the Complainant had disclosed that she had feelings for him, the Member acted sexually towards the Complainant in that he:
(i) said he thought they had connection and should explore it;
(ii) said to the Complainant ‘you cover yourself up with a throw in therapy, will you be able to be naked?’
(iii) drove the Complainant home, during which he placed his hand on her inner thigh.
1.5 On 6 December Year 1, the Member acted sexually towards the Complainant in that he:
(i) met the Complainant at his office;
(ii) kissed the Complainant;
(iii) touched the Complainant’s breasts;
(iv) traced the Complainant’s legs and thighs;
(v) took the Complainant to his home;
(vi) cuddled the Complainant;
(vii) pulled the Complainant’s shorts and tights off;
(viii) had sexual intercourse with the Complainant.
1.6 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018:
33. We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client.
34. We will not have sexual relationships with or behave sexually towards our clients, supervisees or trainees.
35. We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually.
Allegation 2
2.1 On one or more occasions between July and December Year 1, the Member disclosed to the Complainant confidential information about a former client (A), including that:
[ . . . ]
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018:
55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure.
Allegation 3
3.1 From 6 December Year 1 to October Year 2, after the Complainant’s last therapy session, the Member had a sexual relationship with the Complainant, including on one or more occasions, having sexual intercourse with the Complainant.
3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018:
37 We will avoid continuing or resuming any relationships with former clients that could harm the client or damage any benefits from the therapeutic work undertaken. We recognise that conflicts of interest and issues of power or dependence may continue after our working relationship with a client, supervisee or trainee has formally ended. Therefore:
a. We will exercise caution before entering into personal or business relationships with former clients
b. We will avoid sexual or intimate relationships with former clients or people close to them. Exceptionally, such a relationship will only be permissible following careful consideration in supervision and, whenever possible, following discussion with experienced colleagues or others concerned about the integrity of the counselling professions, when:
• enough time has elapsed, or the circumstances of the people concerned have sufficiently changed to establish a distinction between the former and proposed new relationship
• any therapeutic dynamics from the former relationship have been sufficiently resolved to enable beginning a different type of relationship. (This may not be possible with some clients or inappropriate to some therapeutic ways of working.)
• an equivalent service to the one provided by the practitioner is available to the former client, should this be wanted in future
• the practitioner has taken demonstrable care in ensuring that the new relationship has integrity and is not exploitative.
Allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 to 1.6, 2 and 3 amount to Professional Misconduct as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018. Allegation 1.3 does not amount to Professional Misconduct but is a failure to maintain Professional Standards.
Preliminary issues
Proceeding in the Member’s absence
The Panel noted that it had met [ . . . ] to consider whether a hearing should proceed in the absence of the Member who had not responded to or engaged with the BACP. On that occasion, the Panel had found: the BACP had made all reasonable steps to contact the Member, who had not requested an adjournment or provided an admission or denial of any of the allegations; the public interest in public protection and the maintenance of professional standards and the reputation of the BACP and the counselling professions outweighed any prejudice to the Member in being absent from the hearing.
The Panel therefore decided that in all the circumstances it would be fair, appropriate and reasonable to proceed with the future hearing in the absence of the Member.
Amendment of allegations
The Panel had noted during its preparation for the hearing that there were errors in the allegations put the Member:
• The stem of Allegations 1.4 and 1.5 referred to ‘Complaint’ instead of ‘Complainant’.
• Allegation 2.1(iii) used the word ‘and’ when it should clearly read ‘an’.
• Allegation 1.5(v)-(viii) referred to event ‘on’ 6 December Year 1, when the evidence in the papers appeared to indicate these events took place on a later date.
The Panel took advice from the Clerk who referred them to Clause 4.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:
4.12 Amendment of allegations
At any stage before making its findings of fact, and having considered any representations by the parties as to the appropriateness of doing so, the Panel may permit or direct the amendment of the allegations.
The Panel advised the BACP Case Presenter (CP) that it was considering amending the allegations. The CP had no objections and was supportive of the Panel’s intent with the exception of the proposed amendment to Allegation 1.5 (v) – (viii), citing fairness to the Member.
The Panel noted the Member was not able to make representations. It concluded that there was no prejudice to the Member in making the typographical amendments in his absence as they did not alter the clear meaning of the allegations. However, it agreed that an amendment of Allegations 1.5(v)-(viii) to change and extend the alleged date of the misconduct was fundamental and would produce disproportionate prejudice to the Member.
The Panel decided and directed the following amendments of the allegations:
• The stems of Allegations 1.4 and 1.5 be amended to read ‘the Member acted sexually towards the Complainant’.
• Allegation 2.1(iii) be amended to read ‘discuss an open marriage’.
The Panel decided that not to direct amendment of Allegations 1.5(v)-(viii).
Admissions
The Member made no admissions or denials of the facts alleged.
Evidence before Panel
In comings to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The BACP’s bundle of evidence and exhibits.
• The written and oral evidence of the original complainant [ . . . ] and the BACP.
• The Panel heard evidence from witness [ . . . ].
• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
• The Ethical Frameworks for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Summary of Evidence
The complaint, as summarised by the Investigation and Assessment Committee, stated:
The Complainant states she went to therapy due to ‘crippling social anxiety’ and that the Member began a sexual relationship with her when she was his client and whilst she was [ . . . ]. The Complainant thinks that misconduct could have taken place in therapy before the sexual relationship began. She provided a text from the Member dated 30 October Year 2 confirms they’d ‘been together almost a year’.
The Complainant said the Member asked about her relationship numerous times without her bringing it up, although she was not in therapy to talk about her relationship issues. The Complainant talked about her relationship issues and discussed the difficulties [ . . . ].
The Member reportedly made inappropriate, flirtatious and sexual comments towards the Complainant in sessions. He would say how his [ . . . ] said he was ‘different from other men’. He would describe how he resolved issues in their relationship by sitting down, wrapping their legs around one another and reassuringly saying ‘I’m not going anywhere, but let’s talk about this...’. At the end of a session he said, ‘if you want a hug from me, you can always ask me for one.’ The Complainant did not. The Member walked the Complainant to the door and said he had a ‘lot of love’ for her, and that he was there if she needed anything ‘human to human’.
The Complainant said she was starting to get feelings for the Member. A few times the Member would mention sex with his [ . . . ], one in particular he mentioned ‘when on top, I could see the trauma in her hips. It was as if she was 12.’ The Complainant said she must have had a look on her face because the Member said ‘And obviously, that disturbed me greatly!’ The Member explained how he was able to help this woman ‘make love not just have sex’. The Member said that the Complainant’s [ . . . ] ‘was getting off to pixels on a screen instead of [her]’. This made the Complainant feel sad and less desirable [ . . . ]. The Member said the Complainant must be feeling ‘sexually, emotionally and mentally frustrated’, repeatedly said ‘I guess this is why people have affairs’ and mentioned ‘sexual surrogacy’, which the Complainant understood to mean ‘a type of therapy where clients have a sexual type of relationship with their therapists to address their sexual issues in a safe environment’. The Member would tell the Complainant how beautiful she was and how she had a unique sense of style, complimenting her eye make-up.
The Member shared his own personal issues with the Complainant, [ . . . ].
The Member bought the Complainant a present, a £40 throw for comfort.
The Member was sexual with the Complainant in his office. On 28 November Year 1 the parties had a therapy session. There was music playing and massage oil on the shelf with a flannel that was not usually there. On 3 December Year 1, the Member said he thought they ‘had a connection’ and that they ‘should explore it’. The Member said to the Complainant, ‘you cover yourself up with a throw in therapy, will you be able to be naked?’, and joked about how affairs are not normally discussed before they are had. The Member drove the Complainant home and placed his hand on her inner thigh. The Complainant assumes the therapeutic relationship ended on this day, her last payment being 5 December Year 1.
On 6 December Year 1 they were sexual in his office, with the Member kissing the Complainant’s face and body and traced her legs. The next time, they went to his house, where they had sexual intercourse, and the Member told the Complainant he loved her. One time quite early on when the parties had sex the Member ‘flipped out and got really angry’ because the Complainant did not orgasm.
The Member used what he knew about the Complainant from therapy to act out his sexual desires with her, exploiting her emotional and sexual vulnerabilities. The Member commented on the Complainant’s sexual issues, telling her he thought she would be more experienced because of ‘what [she’d] said in therapy’- the Complainant had disclosed that [ . . . ]. The Complainant states the Member knew so much about her sexual history and struggles, that it was ‘weird’ the Member knew all of the most personal things about her, and that it was ‘strange’ to start having sex with someone she had paid for therapy who knew everything about her.
The Member would gaslight the Complainant. On one occasion he told the Complainant that she was ‘feeling guilty because [she] did not work on [her] [ . . . ]. The Member told the Complainant to ‘fabricate’ the affair and to delete her texts during the affair. He told her to ‘forget about the way [they] met’. He was very controlling in the sense that the Complainant was not allowed talk to anyone about the affair. When the Complainant told a friend via text, the Member said that he had put his job at risk to be with her, and that she should not put him at risk. The Member specifically told the Complainant which counsellors she could not talk to. The Member was ‘mad’ when she reached out to another counsellor, saying [ . . . ] was a small place and asking how she could put him at risk like that. The Member would change his adverts to say he specialised in males, telling the Complainant he did it for her to make her feel more comfortable, when he did it to protect himself. The Member was adamant from the beginning that the Complainant delete her texts, saying it was to protect her. The Complainant distanced herself from friends and family.
The Member broke confidentiality by telling the Complainant details about other clients. He told the Complainant about a former client called ‘[ . . . ]’, telling the Complainant he suggested to [ . . . ] an ‘open marriage’, sat in the car with her, had been to her house and had phone calls with her at night. He told the Complainant he needed to be careful, and that [ . . . ] did not know about the Ethical Framework.
The Member attempted to dissuade the Complainant from reporting him to BACP. He said he felt ‘very restricted by the ethical framework’. He told the Complainant that ‘reporting him to BACP was not about trying to protect other women but just [her] trying to take the blame off [herself] and that it would not have even happened, that he would not have thought of [her] in that way if [she] was not wearing a particular top in therapy’. He said that if she reported him, he would have ‘nothing to live for’, and that he ‘may have bowel cancer’.
The Member contacted the Complainant after police told him to leave her alone, sending her a sexual poem and pictures of his living room and sofa, and has still tried to contact her in ‘numerous ways’.
The Complainant said she never expected that a professional may use their qualities and insight into the human psyche, to abuse it for their own pleasure or because of their own unresolved issues. She never expected a therapist to encourage her to put her marriage and emotional well-being at risk. She never expected to pay for this experience.
The Complainant attached emails, bank statements, screenshots, texts and google documents in support of her complaint.
Decision and Reasons for Findings
On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:
The Panel found that, while [ . . . ] had not been asked to restate the details supporting every element of every allegation in oral evidence, she had given consistent oral testimony in relation to the majority of the alleged events that was consistent with her written complaint. It also found that [ . . . ] oral and written testimony were, in some respects, supported by the documentary evidence that she had provided. The Panel found no reason to question [ . . . ] credibility and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, accepted her written and oral testimony.
Allegation 1 - UPHELD IN PART
Allegations 1.1 AND 1.2 - PROVED
The Panel found Allegations 1.1 and 1.2(i)-(ix) proved on the basis of [ . . . ] written and oral evidence. In relation to the stem of Allegation 1.2, the Panel accepted [ . . . ] oral evidence that the events listed at (i)-(ix) took place before she sent the member an electronic message in which she shared her feelings for him with the Member. The Panel therefore concluded that these events took place before they stopped having therapy sessions. The Panel found there was no evidence to indicate meetings between sessions and therefore concluded that these events took place in therapy sessions.
The Panel agreed that, while some of the conduct listed at 1.2(i)-(ix) may, if the Member had provided an innocent explanation, have been appropriate. In the absence of such evidence, and as a pattern of behaviour, the conduct listed at 1.2(i)-(ix) was inappropriate and sexual. It therefore found Allegation 1.2 proved in full.
Allegation 1.3 - PROVED
The Panel found the misconduct listed at Allegations 1.3(i)-(vi) proved on the basis of [ . . . ] written and oral evidence. In relation to the stem of Allegation 1.3, it found that the misconduct listed at 1.3(i)-(v) were independently instances of failure to maintain professional boundaries. It agreed that if the Member had provided an innocent explanation, buying the throw (1.3(vi)) may have been appropriate. However, in the absence of such evidence, and as a pattern of behaviour, the Panel found the conduct listed at 1.3(i)-(vi) amounted to a failure to maintain professional boundaries. It therefore found Allegation 1.3 proved in full.
Allegations 1.4 and 1.5 – PROVED IN PART
The Panel found the misconduct listed at Allegations 1.4 and 1.5(i)-(iv) proved on the basis of [ . . . ] written and oral evidence. It found that each of the elements listed amounted, individually and as a course of behaviour, to acting sexually towards [ . . . ].
The BACP withdrew Allegations 1.5(v)-(viii) on the basis of [ . . . ] written evidence that she confirmed in oral testimony. She maintained that these events took place, but on a later date to that alleged. Accordingly, Allegations 1.5(v)-(viii) were not capable of proof as drafted.
The Panel accepted the BACP’s withdrawal of Allegations 1.5(v)-(viii).
Allegation 1.6 – PROVED IN PART
The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraphs 33.a-b, 34 and 35 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
The Panel found that Allegation 1.1, while proved, did not amount to misconduct or an ethical breach.
The Panel found that the dual relationship had not been established at the time of the conduct it found proved under Allegations 1.2 and 1.3 and that Allegation 1.3, while alleging breaches of boundaries did not allege sexual behaviour. It also found that at the time of the conduct found proved under Allegation 1.5(i)-(iv), [ . . . ] was no longer a client of the Member and paragraphs 33.a-b, 34 and 35 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018 did not apply.
The Panel found:
• Allegation 1.2 was a breach of paragraphs 33.a (only), 34 and 35 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
• Allegation 1.3 was a breach of paragraphs 33.a (only) and 35 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
• Allegation 1.4 was a breach of paragraphs 33.a-b, 34 and 35 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
• Allegation 1.5(i)-(iv) was not a breach of the paragraphs alleged.
Allegation 2 – UPHELD IN FULL
Allegation 2.1 – PROVED
The Panel found the misconduct listed at Allegation 2.1(i)-(iv) proved on the basis of [ . . . ] written and oral evidence. It found that the Member had disclosed these personal details and named Client A to [ . . . ], although Client A was not known to [ . . . ].
Allegation 2.2 - PROVED
The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraph 55.a of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
It found that the Member had failed to actively protect Client A’s confidentiality by disclosing this information to [ . . . ].
Allegation 3 – UPHELD IN FULL
Allegation 3.1 – PROVED
The Panel found the misconduct listed at Allegation 3.1 proved on the basis of [ . . . ] written and oral evidence.
Allegation 3.2 – PROVED
The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraph 37.a-b of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
The Panel found there was no evidence that the Member exercised any caution or considered the issues listed in paragraph 37. Indeed, [ . . . ] evidence indicated that he knowingly and flagrantly acted in breach of the BACP ethical framework. Similarly, [ . . . ] evidence gave no indication that the Member demonstrated any care to ensure their post-therapeutic relationship was not exploitative of [ . . . ].
The Panel concluded the Member acted in breach of paragraph 37.a-b of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession 2018.
Professional Misconduct - PROVED
The Panel went on to consider whether the Member's actions that were found proved in relation to Allegations 1.1 to 1.3 and 2.2 to 2.5 amounted to Professional Misconduct (as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018). In doing so, the Panel considered the criteria set out in BACP Protocol 14 for when suspension or withdrawal or membership may be an appropriate sanction.
The Panel first found that paragraph 1.1 did not amount to misconduct at all and was not, therefore, Professional Misconduct.
The Panel agreed that individually and cumulatively, the remaining allegations were of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the BACP may be warranted. With the exception of dishonesty, each allegation involved the majority or all of the criteria for suspension or withdrawal or membership set out in Protocol 14.
Accordingly, the Panel found that the Member’s actions as proved in relation to Allegations 1.2, 1.4 to 1.6, 2 and 3 amounted to Professional Misconduct.
Decision
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been Professional Misconduct a failure to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraph 25 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016, and paragraphs 33a & b, 34, 35, 37 and 55a of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened [ . . . ] to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate.
The Panel reminded itself of its findings (above), the sanctions available under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and the BACP Sanction Protocol (PR14). It noted the Member had not made any submission relating to sanction or engaged with the BACP complaint process and that he had allowed his membership to expire [ . . . ].
The Panel considered the guidance in PR14 about factors to consider when imposing a sanction and circumstances in which a suspension or withdrawal of Membership may be appropriate. It found that the allegations proved amounted to a serious and knowing breach of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 and the fundamental principles, values and personal moral qualities contained therein. The misconduct was sexual in nature and in abuse of the Member’s position of trust. The Panel noted the Member had not expressed any regret or demonstrated any insight into his behaviour and had failed to engage with the BACP professional conduct procedure in any meaningful way.
The Panel agreed that an apology, training and/or demonstration of change of practice were not adequate to protect the public and the reputations of the BACP and the counselling professions.
The Panel decided that the Member’s misconduct was so serious and contradictory to the role and required behaviour of a counsellor, that only a period of suspension or withdrawal of membership would adequately address public protection and maintenance of professional standards and the public reputation of the counselling professions. It noted that the Member had not engaged with the investigation and hearing of the complaint or this sanction decision. It therefore had no evidence that he had remediated, and the Panel therefore concluded that only withdrawal of membership, and the accompanying need for the Member to apply to re-join the BACP, was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)