February 2017: Asher Quinn, Reference no 576066, London SW15

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the case as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel is that, in 2013, Mr Quinn was seeing the Complainant's wife, [ . . . ], when it was suggested that the Complainant see Mr Quinn as well. The Complainant stated that he was not sure whether it was at Mr Quinn's suggestion or his wife's. During the sessions that the Complainant was seen by Mr Quinn, the Complainant alleged that Mr Quinn tried to force the Complainant's wife's views on to him and pre-judged him based on Mr Quinn's conversations with the Complainant's wife.

The Complainant alleged that Mr Quinn told him that he had Condition X based on the fact that the Complainant had ignored his [ . . . ].  The Complainant also alleged that Mr Quinn
told the Complainant's wife that the Complainant had Condition X and suddenly his house was full of books about this condition. The Complainant saw a Consultant Psychiatrist who specialised in Condition X and an [ . . .] test operative. Both agreed that the Complainant was not on the [ . . . ].

The Complainant also alleged that he found Mr Quinn's challenges confrontational by comparing the Complainant to the nation of Iran.  In an email exchange between the Complainant and Mr Quinn, the Complainant alleged that Mr Quinn justified his diagnosis of the Complainant's Condition X by writing that "they [people with {Condition X}] are often very capable in one field, like you are...business in your case".

The Complainant also alleged that Mr Quinn was wrong to see the Complainant as a client when he was already seeing the Complainant's wife; that Mr Quinn was wrong to judge the Complainant as having Condition X without completing the necessary assessments and that Mr Quinn was wrong in agreeing with the Complainant's wife that the Complainant did have Condition X.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1.    Mr Quinn allegedly failed to offer a good quality of care which met the Complainant's needs, in that, during counselling sessions between Mr Quinn and the Complainant, Mr Quinn having previously counselled the Complainant's wife, forced her views on the Complainant and pre-judged him without any exploration of the Complainant's issues.

2.   Mr Quinn allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of his training and experience and failed to work within his limits, in that, he diagnosed the Complainant with Condition X, when he was not qualified to do so.

3.    Mr Quinn allegedly failed to pay careful attention to the quality of listening and respect offered to the Complainant, in that, he forced the Complainant's wife's views and pre-judged the Complainant, without exploring his issues, thereby not honouring and maintaining the trust of the  Complainant as his client.

4.   Mr Quinn allegedly failed to communicate in a way which was courteous, respectful or dignified, in that, in an email to the Complainant he compared him to the nation of Iran.

5.   Mr Quinn allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and dignity, in that; he discussed the diagnosis of Condition X with the  Complainant's wife when he did not have permission and in doing so failed to honour the trust of the Complainant, by not paying careful attention to his (the Complainant's) consent and confidentiality.    

6.    Mr Quinn allegedly failed to take care over the integrity of his professional standing, in that, he gave the impression he was qualified to make a diagnosis of Condition X.

7.   Mr Quinn allegedly failed to avoid a situation where there was a conflict of interest, in that, he entered into a therapeutic relationship with the Complainant when he was already the Complainant's wife's counsellor and that he favoured the Complainant's wife's interests over that of the Complainant, thereby not maintaining the Complainant's trust.

8.   Mr Quinn's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 11, 20, 61 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2013.  It further suggests a contravention of the Ethical Principles of Being trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence and  showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Integrity, Respect, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire. 

There was a typographical error contained within the first allegation which was addressed and corrected by the Adjudication Panel.  

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings: 

1. The Complainant told the Panel that Mr Quinn had raised a number of issues with him during their session and sought the Complainant's views on them, but he said this had been done in a confrontational and not a consultative way. The Complainant said one of the issues raised was an alleged [ . . . ]. [ . . . ]. The Complainant told the Panel that when Mr Quinn raised this with him, Mr Quinn used emotive words, such as "throttle" about the Complainant's behaviour towards [ . . . ] and did not give him the opportunity to fully express his own views. He said he felt that he was being "backed into a corner", that everything he said was being misconstrued and that Mr Quinn wouldn't listen to him.  

The Complainant also told the Panel that his wife had made an accusation that [ . . . ]. The Complainant said he had doubts about the veracity of his wife's accusation, but when this was raised in his session with Mr Quinn, Mr Quinn did not listen to his views about why he doubted the allegation. He said Mr Quinn tried to convince him that X1 was [ . . . ], and used Jimmy Savile as an example to establish that if people could have misjudged Jimmy Savile, then he (the Complainant) could have misjudged X1. The Complainant said Mr Quinn did not give him an opportunity to explain why he thought X1 might be innocent.  

Mr Quinn accepted that he had undertaken several sessions with the Complainant's wife by the time he met the Complainant. He also accepted that when he met the Complainant, he had a number of issues to address with the Complainant which had been raised by the Complainant's wife, for example, [ . . . ]. Mr Quinn said he wanted to deal with the [ . . . ] issue before anything else. He agreed that his approach with the Complainant was "direct". He accepted that he tried to achieve too much in his session with the Complainant in too short a period of time. He said that he did not force his views on the Complainant, he had just raised the various issues with him and asked for his reaction to them.

Mr Quinn accepted during questioning that he regretted using Jimmy Savile as an example but that he had done so to save time in deciding on the future of the therapy. He agreed that he could have asked the Complainant for his views, but that this would have taken a lot longer. 

The Panel found that Mr Quinn accepted in his own evidence that he had not thoroughly explored the Complainant's issues with him, in that he agreed he had taken a direct approach to save time. The Panel also found that he should have explored these issues before using terms such as "throttled", and before comparing the X1 to Jimmy Savile without hearing the Complainant's explanation. In so doing the Panel found that Mr Quinn pre-judged the Complainant.  

The Panel did not find however that Mr Quinn had forced his views on the Complainant. Mr Quinn said he had raised the issues with the Complainant and sought his views on them. The Complainant agreed that this was the case, even though it had been done in a confrontational way. 

The Panel found that in pre-judging the Complainant without any exploration of his issues, Mr Quinn had failed to offer a good quality of care which met the Complainant's needs.

Allegation 1 was upheld in part.

2. Mr Quinn initially strenuously denied that he had diagnosed the Complainant with Condition X.  He said he had told the Complainant several times that he was not qualified to do so. However, Mr Quinn was questioned about an email he had written to the Complainant on 25 June 2013, in which he stated, 

"I am just mirroring back you [sic] what you say and do, and am offering a diagnosis.....{Condition X}...which might enable you to target the right kind of help to save [ . . . ] and avoid acute emotional distress".  

The Member accepted that he had written this and that he should not have done so. The Panel's view was that whilst Mr Quinn denied making a diagnosis, the word "diagnosis" in the email spoke for itself and Mr Quinn agreed that he should not have written it. The Panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Quinn did diagnose the Complainant with Condition X when he was not qualified to do so. It found that this amounted to a failure by him to give careful consideration to the limitations of his training and experience and a failure to work within his limits.

Allegation 2 was upheld.

3. The Panel found in allegation 1 that Mr Quinn pre-judged the Complainant without exploring his issues. It was satisfied that in so doing, he had not paid carefulattention to the quality of listening and respect offered to the Complainant, thereby not honouring and maintaining the Complainant's trust as a client. 

Allegations 3 was upheld in part, for the same reasons as set out in allegation 1. 

4. The Panel had regard to an email written by Mr Quinn and sent to the Complainant on 25 June 2013. He wrote, 

"Your declared stance is power driven, not love driven. You are motivated by efficiency rather than feeling. It reminds me of Iran's position in relation to the west....beleaguered, entrenched and grimly defiant!.." 

Mr Quinn accepted that using the metaphor about Iran was not wise, and said that he was trying to create a "power driven" metaphor. He accepted that doing so was ill-advised and a mistake and that the Complainant was correct in having a grievance about it.

In view of the content of the email and Mr Quinn's admissions, the Panel found that he had compared the Complainant to the nation of Iran. Further, in doing so, Mr Quinn failed to communicate in a way which was courteous, respectful or dignified.  

Allegation 4 was therefore upheld.

5. Mr Quinn's evidence was that before he met the Complainant, he discussed the possibility that the Complainant may have Condition X with the Complainant's wife. He said that this was raised by her, and as such there was no breach of confidentiality owed to the Complainant.  

He also agreed that following his session and his email correspondence with the Complainant, he again discussed the possibility that the Complainant had Condition X with the Complainant's wife. He accepted that he showed the Complainant's wife the email correspondence between himself and the Complainant and that he did not have the Complainant's permission to do so. The Panel considered this email correspondence, which, it noted, addressed the issue and diagnosis of Condition X in detail. 

In view of Mr Quinn's acceptance as outlined above, the Panel found that Mr Quinn discussed the diagnosis of Condition X with the Complainant's wife when he did not have the Complainant's permission to do so. It found that he had not paid careful attention to the Complainant's consent and confidentiality, and that this amounted a failure to respect the Complainant's privacy and dignity. 

Allegation 5 was therefore upheld.

6. The Complainant told the Panel that during email correspondence with Mr Quinn about  whether he (the Complainant) had Condition X, Mr Quinn had made reference to the [ . . . ]. The Complainant agreed that Mr Quinn had said he was not a psychiatrist. 

The Panel also considered the email correspondence between Mr Quinn and the Complainant. In an email dated 22 June 2013 from Mr Quinn to the Complainant, Mr Quinn said,

".....I'm not a psychiatrist, and I'm not qualified to instigate [ . . . ] testing for you....Therapists have a diagnostic manual called the [ . . . ], and {Condition X} is listed in full in that manual..." 

Mr Quinn addressed this matter in a subsequent email to the Complainant on 15 July 2013. He stated, 

"I am qualified to suggest, according to the [ . . . ] manual, that you may exhibit certain [ . . . ]....." 

Mr Quinn also provided the Complainant with a number of links to literature about Condition X so that the Complainant could look into the issue himself.

Having considered the evidence, the Panel found that Mr Quinn had not given the impression that he was qualified to make a diagnosis of Condition X. He had clearly stated that he was not qualified to instigate [ . . . ] testing, but that he was qualified to suggest that the Complainant exhibited [ . . . ] of Condition X. In the Panel's view, his statement that he was qualified to suggest [ . . . ] of Condition X did not equate to a suggestion that he was qualified to make a diagnosis of Condition X. The Panel did not therefore find that Mr Quinn had failed to take care over the integrity of his professional standing. 

Allegation 6 was therefore not upheld.

7. Mr Quinn denied that he was in a therapeutic relationship with the Complainant. His view was that his session with the Complainant was merely to assess how the Complainant might pursue his therapy options in future. Mr Quinn also did not accept that he was the Complainant's wife's counsellor. He maintained that although he had seen her several times, she was still considering [ . . . ]. 

The Panel did not accept these assertions. In relation to the Complainant's wife, Mr Quinn agreed that he had seen her several times before he saw the Complainant. He did not dispute that she had raised [ . . . ] and that he subsequently raised these issues with the Complainant. In the Panel's view, it was self-evident that Mr Quinn was her counsellor. She sought his professional help for [ . . . ] and he was assisting [ . . . ]. Further, he had seen her at least three times to discuss these issues before he saw the Complainant with the intention of discussing the [ . . . ] further.

In relation to the Complainant, the Panel found that Mr Quinn had entered a therapeutic relationship with him. This was because the Complainant was seeking professional assistance from Mr Quinn in Mr Quinn's capacity as a therapist. The Complainant sought this assistance in the context of Mr Quinn's prior knowledge that the Complainant and his wife had [ . . . ]. Further, following the face to face session(s) between the Complainant and Mr Quinn, Mr Quinn continued to communicate with the Complainant by email and offered professional opinions on the issues raised in the original session(s). In these circumstances, it was self-evident that a therapeutic relationship existed between Mr Quinn and the Complainant.

The Panel therefore found that Mr Quinn was already the Complainant's wife's counsellor when he entered into a therapeutic relationship with the Complainant. Further, the Panel reminded itself of its findings in allegation 1, that Mr Quinn pre-judged the Complainant based on information he previously obtained from the Complainant's wife. Mr Quinn had clearly accepted what the Complainant's wife had told him about [ . . . ]. The Panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Quinn favoured the Complainant's wife's interests over those of the Complainant. In so doing, he failed to avoid a situation where there was a conflict of interest and did not maintain the Complainant's trust.  

Allegation 7 was upheld.

8.   In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 2, 11, 20 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principles of  Being Trustworthy, Autonomy and Beneficence had been breached.  It also found that Mr Quinn demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire.  The Panel did not find that paragraph 61 of the Ethical Framework had been breached nor the ethical principles of Non-Maleficence or the personal moral quality of Integrity. 

Decision 

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice, because Mr Quinn had been incompetent and provided inadequate professional services.

Mitigation 

Mr Quinn had been open and honest in admitting his mistakes during the hearing. He accepted that he should have taken more time to explore the Complainant's issues and that he should have been more measured and less confrontational. Further, he agreed that he had tried to achieve too much in a short period of time. 

Sanction 

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public.  The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection. The Panel imposed the following sanction: 

Within not less than three but no more than six months from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Quinn is required to provide a written submission which evidences his immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint. In particular, the submission should address: 

• The risks of writing work emails late at night without considering the implications.
• Best practice in working with couples.
• Understanding how conflicts of interest might be avoided, how confidentiality can be maintained and how Mr Quinn has changed his practice as a result of this complaint. 

This written submission must be discussed by Mr Quinn with his supervisor during supervision, and must be accompanied by a statement from his supervisor confirming that it was so discussed. 

This written submission and the accompanying statement from Mr Quinn's supervisor must be sent to the Registrar of the BACP Register by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel. 

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)