June 2026: SS, Membership Number 00701577, Registrant ID 74423

June 2026: Salma Suleyman, Membership Number 00701577, Registrant ID 74423

Attendees:

1. The Member, Salma Suleyman, attended and was supported by [..].

2. The Complainant, […], attended and was supported by […] (Professional Supporter).

Introduction:

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.

Background:

4. The Complainant saw the Member for counselling between December [Year 1] and April [year2].

5. On 10 May [year 2], the Complainant emailed […[, through which he had arranged counselling with the Member. The Clinic referred him to the BACP complaints process.

6. The Complainant complained that the Member:

a. did not listen to his expression of a desire to end therapy and convinced him to continue and ‘wilfully ignored [his] concerns and wishes’.

b. shared confidential information about other clients.

7. The Complainant provided copies of emails with the Member and details of the information disclosed about other clients.

Preliminary Matters

Late Evidence Application

8. The Member had made a written application for new evidence to be admitted and considered as part of the hearing. The nature of the evidence was character evidence from the Member’s Supervisor.

9. The Complainant was invited to respond to the application. He had no objections to the admission of the statement.

10. The Panel took advice from the Clerk. Having done so, and taking into account clause 4.9 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) and the BACP Protocol on New/Late Evidence, the Chair noted the following:

a. The statement had not, but could have, been obtained earlier and submitted in accordance with the BACP standard directions.

b. The statement was not probative of the facts to be determined in the hearing but could be helpful to the Panel if it came to deciding on a sanction.

c. There was no likely prejudice to the Complainant in allowing the statement to be admitted.

d. The Member was unrepresented and unfamiliar with the nature of these proceedings.

11. The Panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice to admit the statement and granted the application.

The Allegations

12. The Allegations made against the Member are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member persuaded the Complainant to continue with therapy against his wishes.

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:

12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust).

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member shared information with the Complainant which was inappropriate and/or confidential and/or private in that she:

a) Disclosed personal details relating to other clients; and/or
b) Gave the Complainant an opinion on his daughter’s mother.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust) and/or

55a (We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by: actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure).

Evidence

Witness Evidence

13. The Member gave evidence.

14. The Complainant also gave evidence.

Documentary Evidence

15. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included but was not limited to:

a. The Complainant’s Complaint.
b. The Member’s responses to the complaint including copies of his session and supervision notes.
c. Copies of emails between the parties provided by the parties.
d. The redacted Investigation and Assessment Committee Report.
e. The character evidence from the member’s supervisor.

Facts

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

16. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel has borne in mind that findings should be made on the balance of probabilities, or whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred.

Findings

Allegation 1.1 – Not Proved

17. The Panel accepted both parties’ evidence that, while there were a number of times when the Complainant raised the possibility of ending therapy, there was only one occasion when he clearly stated that he wanted to stop seeing the Member for counselling. That occasion was after the Complainant had been away on holiday and returned feeling much better. He told the Member he was feeling really good and didn’t need or want to continue with therapy. The Member said words to the effect that, ‘counselling isn’t only for when we feel bad’. The Complainant accepted this reasoning and was not coerced or pressured inappropriately by the Member. The Complainant agreed to attend a further session. The Panel accepted both parties’ evidence that, while a date for an ending was not set, both parties had the same understanding that any future therapy session/s set were working towards an ending.

The Panel considered it appropriate for the Member to have put to the Complainant that ‘counselling isn’t only for when we feel bad’ and offer a further session at which to discuss matters further and work towards a managed ending. The Complainant was ‘persuaded’ but having been persuaded changed his wishes, so the therapy was not continued against his wishes.

18. The Panel therefore found allegation 1.1 not proved.

Allegation 1.2 – Not considered

19. As the Panel had found the facts set out in allegation 1.1 not proved it was not required to consider allegation 1.2.

Allegation 2.1(a) - Proved

20. The Panel accepted the evidence of both parties that the Member disclosed a detailed narrative of a session with a pair of clients (a couple), even stating which seats they sat in. It found that this amounted to personal details. The Panel agreed that details of a therapy session, even without identifying details like names, were private and confidential, and that it was inappropriate for the Member to have disclosed the other clients’ session in so much detail. By doing so, the Member was opening a significant area of therapy at a time when both partes understood they were working towards an ending.

21. The Panel found allegation 2.1(a) proved.

Allegation 2.1(b) - Proved

22. Again, the Panel found the facts were not in dispute. The Member admitted giving the Complainant an opinion on the Complainant’s daughter’s mother. The Panel concluded that as it was the Member’s personal opinion, it was not a breach of confidentiality. However, it accepted the Complainant’s evidence that he did not seek the Member’s opinion and therefore the Panel concluded it was gratuitous, had no therapeutic value and was therefore inappropriate.

23. The Panel found allegation 2.1(b) proved.

Allegation 2.2 - Proved

24. The Panel then applied its findings above to paragraphs 12 and 55a of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

25. It concluded that the Member’s behaviour in disclosing the details of the other clients’ session and their opinion of the Complainant’s daughter’s mother undermined the Complainant’s trust in the Member. It therefore concluded that allegations 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) amounted to a breach of paragraph 12 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the
Counselling Professions 2018.

The Panel found that only the disclosure of the other clients’ session was a failure to protect confidentiality. It therefore concluded that allegations 2.1(a) only amounted to a breach of paragraph 55a of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Decision

26. The Panel concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:

12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust) and/or

55a (We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by: actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure).

Decision on Sanction

27. The Panel reconvened on 23 February 2026 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.

28. Paragraph 5.12 of the PCP states that the Panel may impose one or more of the following sanctions where a case is allocated to the Practice Review Process and one or more of the allegations is found proved:

i. A requirement to send a written apology to a relevant recipient of therapeutic services provided by the Member [whether or not that recipient is the Complainant] by a specific date;
ii. A requirement to demonstrate specific change/improvement in practice by a specific date;
iii. A requirement to undertake specific training by a specific date;

29. The Panel considered also a five-page submission on sanction from the Member dated 16 December 2025. In summary the Member submitted the following:

• She has reflected and in hindsight would not have disclosed that it was case material that she was referring to but would have referred to examples. This would have been less triggering for the client and may have even been a beneficial way to think about things.

• She was not acting carelessly but in honesty and openness and believes that practitioners often use case material in sessions. This is something she has processed over the past year in a reflective practice group and in supervision.

• Her comments about the client’s former partner were made not as an opinion, but because the client required her professional thoughts. The client did not respond to these statements negatively in the session and was able to reflect on his own experiences.

• She has reflected and learned from this experience and has discussed in supervision to ensure a more collaborative and thorough assessment of complex cases before beginning the work to ensure that there is a therapeutic care plan in place which is discussed at MDT level.

• Following the hearing, the director at her practice was contacted by the client who is not a practitioner working directly with the client. The client asked to speak with the director and went on to make allegations against the Member which she believes is negative and malicious.

• The Member provides details of training undertaken including:

i. Trauma Informed Practice Training for Practitioners - [year 4] - 6 hours
ii. Trauma Informed Practice Advanced Introduction – [year 3] - 1 hour
iii. Safeguarding Bundle - [year 4]
iv. Privacy, Dignity, & Duty of Care – [year 4] – 20 minutes
v. Facilitating Reflective Practice for Clinicians – [year 3] – 20 minutes
vi. Trauma Informed Practice (TIP) Language – [year 3]

30. The Panel also considered the reference from the Member’s supervisor which was admitted as evidence at the hearing. The Member’s Supervisor confirmed that the Member had discussed and reflected on the complaint within supervision sessions.

31. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect members of the public and the wider public interest, although it may have a punitive effect. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Member’s interests with the public interest.

Findings and Reasons on Sanction

32. The Panel noted from the Member’s submissions that she does not appear to accept the matters found proved at the hearing. It decided therefore that a sanction was required to address the Member’s conduct and the breaches of the Ethical Framework identified.

33. The Panel took into account the details of CPD referred to by the Member in her submissions. However, it noted that these were mostly undertaken before the hearing, they were not evidenced and they were not directly relevant to the allegation found proved. It also took into account the reference from the Member’s supervisor; however, it bore in mind that this was written before the hearing.

34. The Panel therefore decided that the appropriate sanction is as follows:

The Member is required, within 6 weeks of being notified of this decision, to provide to BACP

a. Evidence of a minimum of 6 hours CPD, completed since the hearing, on the relevance and importance of confidentiality in counselling relationships. This should be evidenced by certificates of completion, references to reading material and time spent.

b. A reflective statement outlining her learning from the CPD above and to include the importance of trust within therapeutic relationships. This should provide details of how she will embed her learning into her practice, and changes and improvements she has made to prevent a repetition of the conduct found proved.

c. A letter of apology addressed to the Complainant, written following her reflective statement, which acknowledges and takes accountability for the impact of her conduct on him.

d. Evidence that all aspects of the sanction have been discussed with her Supervisor.

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