Professional Conduct notice / MC

January 2026: Mark Colby, Reference No 00714359 , Registrant ID 28133

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 In or around September Year 14, the Member engaged in an intimate and sexual relationship with a client within three months of their therapeutic relationship ending.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 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; and/or 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; and/or c) We will be professionally accountable if the relationship becomes detrimental to the former client or damages the standing of the profession. and/or 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute).

1.3 Allegation 1.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

[..]

[…]

Admissions

3. The Member made admissions to each of the Allegations.

Evidence before the Panel

In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The Association’s bundle of evidence and exhibits, which included the witness statement of […] and the exhibits attached to it.
• The written and oral evidence of […]
• The oral and written evidence of the Member, including the documents he had provided to his employer and to the Association, most particularly his emails dated 13 December Year 16 and 7 March Year 17
• The Panel heard oral evidence from […] on behalf of the Association, and from the Member
• The BACP professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018

Background and Summary of Evidence

4. […], Clinical and Operational Lead for the […] (the Service), made a complaint to the Association on 2 June Year 16 about the conduct of the Member. A client (the Client) had made a complaint about the Member to the Service. Following the complaint the Service carried out an investigation of the complaint and this was subsequently followed by a disciplinary hearing. The investigation report and the outcome letter of the disciplinary hearing were before the Panel. The Member admitted to the Service that he had conducted a sexual relationship with the Client.

5. Whilst the papers before the Panel disclose some inconsistencies in matters stated by the Client, in matters stated by the Member and between the Client and the Member, the core facts are not in dispute.

6. The core facts are as follows. The Client had 4 to 5 on line sessions with the Member, the last session taking place at the end of July/beginning of August Year 14, after which the Member went on […] and the Client was appointed another counsellor. The Client found out where the Member lived and some weeks after the last session went to the Member’s home. The Member gave the Client his personal email address and the parties exchanged emails. The parties progressed to meeting in person and subsequently entered into a sexual relationship around October/November Year 14. The relationship subsequently broke down, but the Member disclosed during his oral evidence to the Panel that the relationship resumed in May Year 17 and ended in November Year 17 […].

The hearing

7. The Panel heard the evidence under affirmation of […] who adopted her witness statement and exhibits and clarified that the Member had worked for the Service since Year 1, that the investigation had been undertaken by the Member’s line manager and that she had chaired the disciplinary hearing,

8. In his evidence under affirmation before the Panel the Member did not resile from his admissions but sought to place his conduct in the context of […] and his […] health amongst other matters and asked the Panel to take these into account as mitigating circumstances. The Panel has made a careful note of the Member’s evidence as to mitigation and will factor this, and any further such information that the Member may wish to provide prior to the sanction stage into its consideration at that stage.

9. Having fully considered all the evidence in the case, including the Member’s admission, the Panel made the following finding of fact, bearing in mind throughout its deliberations that the burden was on the Association to prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities.

Decision and Reasons for Finding

Allegation 1.1 Found proved

In or around September Year 14, the Member engaged in an intimate and sexual relationship with a client within three months of their therapeutic relationship ending.

The Client alleges an intimate and sexual relationship with the Member. The Member admitted to such a relationship to the Service, as set out in the documents before the Panel, and admitted such a relationship to the Panel.

Allegation 1.2

The Panel went on to consider whether, in its professional judgment, Allegation 1.1 breached the Ethical Framework as alleged.

paragraph 37

The Panel firstly considered the ‘stem’ of paragraph 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.

The Panel is satisfied that, despite the Member’s oral evidence that the relationship may have benefited the Client, when it considered the totality of the information available to it from the client and from the Member, including the Member’s evidence of the nature and extent of the Client’s [..] and her own statements as to the impact upon her, the relationship could have harmed the client.

The Panel then considered sub paragraphs 37 a), 37 b) and 37 c)

Allegation 1.2 paragraph 37 a) Found proved

We will exercise caution before entering into personal or business relationships with former clients;

The Panel accepts that the Member exercised some caution before entering in to a relationship with the client in that he initially demonstrated some hesitation before entering into the relationship and that he discussed the appropriateness of entering into a relationship through informal supervision with a healthcare professional. However, the Member:

(i) overcame his hesitation,
(ii) failed to take the advice given to him in informal supervision and
(iii) failed to avail himself of the formal supervision that he accepted in evidence was available to him at the Service from his line manager […].

The decision of the Panel is that, by reason of the matters listed at (i) to (iii) above, the Member failed to exercise caution before entering into a personal relationship with his former client.

Allegation 1.2 paragraph 37 b) Found proved

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;

The Panel has considered this sub paragraph in the following sections:

(i) 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;

The Panel has already determined that the Member failed to take the advice he was given in informal supervision and failed to avail himself of the formal supervision available to him at the Service from his line manager.

(ii) 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;

It is not in dispute that the Member began a sexual relationship with the client within three months of their last session.

Nor is it in dispute that there were a limited number of sessions between the parties. The Panel accepts that there would not have been sufficient time in these limited number of sessions for deep therapeutic work to have been undertaken, but does consider there to have been sufficient time for a therapeutic dynamic to have developed between the parties and for an attachment to have been made by the Client to the Member as her therapist.

The Panel recognises and factors into its decision making that the professional relationship between the parties took place during […] and that the relationship commenced during […] and that the circumstances of […] may have heightened for the parties the importance of living life. However, the Panel is of the view that three months was insufficient time for each party to have established a distinction between their relationship as counsellor and client and that of romantic/sexual partners.

(iii) an equivalent service to the one provided by the practitioner is available to the former client, should this be wanted in future;

The Panel is satisfied that an alternative counsellor was available to the Client when the Member went on […].

(iv) the practitioner has taken demonstrable care in ensuring that the new relationship has integrity and is not exploitative;

The Panel has already determined that the Member failed to exercise caution before entering into personal relationship his former client but does not consider that the Member exploited the Client.

In light of its determinations in (i) and (ii) above, the Panel finds paragraph 37 b) proved

Allegation 1.2 paragraph 37 c)

We will be professionally accountable if the relationship becomes detrimental to the former client or damages the standing of the profession.

The Panel considers this to be an assertion and is not an allegation that it is required to determine.

Allegation 1.2 paragraph 48 Found proved

We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.

The Panel considers that if a member of the public was to be fully informed of the facts of the Member’s conduct it is likely that their opinion of and trust in the counselling and therapeutic professions would be severely damaged and that they would be significantly less likely to consult a member of the professions.

Allegation 1.3 Found proved

Allegation 1.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The Association defines professional misconduct as ‘a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.’

The view of the Panel is that much of the trust a client places in the counsellor/therapist is based on their knowledge that the therapeutic relationship is safe and that creating and maintaining this safety is a cornerstone of the counselling and therapy professions. The conduct of the Member in entering into a sexual relationship with the Client within three months of the ending of the therapeutic relationship, albeit that the Client may be seen to have initiated the relationship and to have entered willingly into it, is an egregious breach of the therapeutic relationship and of the standards expected of the Member and is, therefore, conduct of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.

Decision

The decision of the Panel is that:

• there has been a failure by the Member to comply with the Professional Standards with regard to Allegation 1.1 in that that there has been a breach of paragraphs 37 a), 37 b) and 48 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, and
• there has been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards that amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 in respect of Allegation 1.1.

[…]

[…].

[…]

[…]

Decision on Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 27 November Year 18 to determine the appropriate sanction (if any) to impose on the Member.
It reminded itself of its findings above and the provisions of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and BACP Protocol 14 Guidance on Sanctions. It noted that the

Member has provided submissions on sanction, in which he states in summary:

• He has nothing to add to what he has said previously at the hearing, in his statement or in his employer’s investigation.

• He has been open and honest since the client made her complaint […].

• He accepts that he was wrong to have engaged in the relationship.

• His mitigation is that he was extremely […] due to working in isolation during […].

• He believes that the client […]. The panel will see from the documents that her behaviour is consistent with that of a person […].

• The gross error of judgement has already cost him his employment.

In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful of public protection and raising and maintaining standards of practice. It considered the following factors, in the information available to the Panel, to be relevant:

Aggravating factors:

• The Complainant was a vulnerable client.

Mitigating factors:

• The Member has 25 years of experience and no previous findings against him.

• The relationship started during the […], when the Member was suffering isolation and […].

• The Member was in the process of […] from practice.

• The Member has cooperated with the investigation and the hearing.

• He has demonstrated some insight and remorse.

• The relationship was a loving relationship and was not exploitative.

• The relationship was initiated by […].

• The therapeutic relationship between the parties had been brief, consisting of only four sessions.

• It is now […] years since the relationship started.

The Panel recognised that entering into a sexual relationship with a former client is a serious breach of professional standards, and that such conduct jeopardises public confidence in the profession. The Panel accepted that the Member is unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future, particularly as he is no longer practising. However, it noted that in his submissions on sanction, he continues to put responsibility for the relationship on the Complainant. It considered that a sanction was required to mark the seriousness of the breach and to maintain public confidence in the counselling profession and BACP as regulator. In view of the mitigation identified, the Panel did not consider that withdrawal of membership was necessary in the particular circumstances of this case.

The Panel therefore decided that, had the Member still been in BACP membership, the following sanction would be imposed, which it considered was fair and proportionate, given the allegations upheld in this case:

1. The Member is suspended from membership of the Association for a period of 3 months.

2. The Member is required to demonstrate change in his practice by, within 3 months of being notified of this decision, providing BACP with a reflection which demonstrates his understanding of:

i. What went wrong in this case.
ii. The impact of his conduct on the Complainant.
iii. The impact of his conduct on BACP and the wider counselling profession.
iv. The responsibility of therapists to prevent inappropriate personal relationships from developing with clients or former clients, regardless of external pressures.
v. How he would prevent a repetition of such conduct if he returned to practice in the future.

[…]

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