Professional Conduct notice / ME

November 2025: Myra Eadie, Reference No 00534636, Registrant ID 83992

Allegations
[…]
[…]

[…]

PCP[…]

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member, […], was instructed by […] and [….] to provide family therapy in accordance with the direction of […] Sherriff dated 13 November Year 1.

1.2 The Member provided therapeutic services to […] from 21 February Year 2.

1.3 In the first session with […], on or around 21 February Year 2 , the Member failed to:

(i) clearly explain the service being provided;
(ii) clearly explain the purpose of the sessions;
(iii) explain confidentiality;
(iv) explain and establish professional boundaries;
(v) explain the Member […] duties to […] and to the court and how these would be balanced;
(vi) clearly set out the costs of the sessions;
(vii) clearly set out the length of the sessions.

1.4 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

31. We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with
clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will
be provided. Attention will be given to:
a. reaching an agreement or contract that takes account of each
client’s expressed needs and choices so far as possible
b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract
in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their
context
c. stating clearly how a client’s confidentiality and privacy will be
protected and any circumstances in which confidential or private
information will be communicated to others
d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed.

Allegation 2

2.1 During a session with […], who was a minor, the Member failed to intervene when […] provided […] with a mobile telephone to text message his […], […], thereby allowing […] to have unsupervised contact with […].

2.2 The Member failed to:
(i) seek […] permission before providing […] with the mobile phone;
(ii) instigate adequate safeguarding measures in relation to […].

2.3 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

27. Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young
people that:
a. takes account of their capacity to give informed consent,
considering whether it is appropriate to seek the consent of others who have parental responsibility for the young person, and their best interests.

Allegation 3

3.1 During her sessions with […], the Member failed to acknowledge […] feelings of:
(i) being unsafe;
(ii) being under attack and intimidated in sessions;
(iii) being pressured to permit […] unsupervised access to her children;
(iv) wanting to stop therapy.

3.2 In or around June Year 2, in a session to discuss […] feelings, the Member failed to intervene when […] told […] that if she withdrew from therapy it would result in a negative report to the Sherriff.

3.3 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

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

25. We will do all that we reasonably can to ensure that our clients are
participating on a voluntary basis. Hesitant clients or clients who feel under
pressure from other people or agencies to work with us will have their
reservations acknowledged and taken into account in how services are
offered.

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member failed to adequately explain to […], and manage, her conflicting duty of confidentiality to the court and her duty of transparency.

4.2 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
e. taking care that all contractual requirements concerning the
management and communication of client information are mutually
compatible.

Allegation 5

5.1 On one or more occasions, when requested by […] and/or […], the Member refused to provide copies of the notes of their sessions together.

5.2 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

44. We will be as open and as communicative with our clients, colleagues and
others as is consistent with the purpose, methods, and confidentiality of the
service.

Allegation 6

6.1 In her preliminary response to BACP, the Member stated:

(i) ‘My function in this case was NOT acting as a Counsellor/Psychotherapist
but as Collaborative Consultant instructed to assist the Court…’
(ii) ‘I was not acting as a Counsellor/Psychotherapist’.

6.2 This statement was inaccurate.

6.3 The Member knew the statement was inaccurate.

6.4 The statement was made in order to avoid being subject of this complaint.

6.5 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

43. We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of
our work.

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

N.B. Allegations 1-6 are allegations of professional misconduct.

PCP[…]

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member, […], was instructed by […] and […] to provide family therapy in accordance with the direction of […] Sherriff dated 13 November Year 1.

1.2 The Member provided therapeutic services to […] from 21 February Year 2.

1.3 In relation to sessions involving […], the Member failed to:

(i) clearly explain to […] or […] the service being provided;
(ii) clearly explain to […] or […] the purpose of the sessions;
(iii) explain confidentiality to […] or […];
(iv) explain to […] or […], and establish, professional boundaries with […];
(v) explain to […] or […] the Member […] duties to […] and to the court and how these would be balanced;
(vi) clearly set out to […] or […] the costs of the sessions;
(vii) clearly set out to […] or […] the length of the sessions.

31. We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with
clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will
be provided. Attention will be given to:
a. reaching an agreement or contract that takes account of each
client’s expressed needs and choices so far as possible
b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract
in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context
c. stating clearly how a client’s confidentiality and privacy will be
protected and any circumstances in which confidential or private
information will be communicated to others
d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what
has been agreed.

Allegation 2

2.2 The Member failed to:

(i) seek […] permission before providing […] with the mobile phone;
(ii) instigate adequate safeguarding measures in relation to […].

27. Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young
people that:
a. takes account of their capacity to give informed consent, considering whether it is appropriate to seek the consent of others who have parental responsibility for the young person, and their best interests.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to adequately explain to […] and […] and manage, her
conflicting duty of confidentiality to the court and her duty of transparency.

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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
e. taking care that all contractual requirements concerning the management and communication of client information are mutually compatible.

Allegation 4

4.1 On one or more occasions, when requested by […] and/or […] on behalf of […], the Member refused to provide copies of the notes of their sessions together.

44. We will be as open and as communicative with our clients, colleagues and
others as is consistent with the purpose, methods, and confidentiality of the
service.

Allegation 5

5.1 In her preliminary response to BACP, the Member stated:
(i) ‘My function in this case was NOT acting as a Counsellor/Psychotherapist
but as Collaborative Consultant instructed to assist the Court…’
(ii) ‘I was not acting as a Counsellor/Psychotherapist’.

5.2 This statement was inaccurate.

5.3 The Member knew the statement was inaccurate.

5.4 The statement was made in order to avoid being the subject of this complaint.

5.5 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 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

43. We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of
our work.

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

NB Allegations 1-5 are allegations of professional misconduct.

Joinder of PCP […]

On 12 December Year 6, a Panel considered and granted the BACP’s application to join […] to be heard at the same time under paragraph 4.7 of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018. The Professional Conduct Panel therefore heard allegations relating to all […] cases.

Amendment of allegations

On 24 March Year 8, after the allegations had been read by the Clerk, the BACP applied to amend […] Allegation 1.3 of PCP[…] to refer to a meeting on 21 February Year 2 […], rather than Year 4.

The Panel took into account Clause 4.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:

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 bore in mind that the Member[…] were not present to make submissions on the proposed amendments. However, it noted that it was not disputed that the therapeutic relationship had taken place in Year 2 and it was clear therefore that the reference to Year 4 was an error. The Panel decided therefore that the amendments could be made without unfairness to the Member[…].

The BACP Case Presenter also made representations to the Panel regarding those allegations which contain a number of sub-allegations identified by use of Roman numerals. He submitted that although the sub-allegations were not followed by the words “and/or”, it was open to the Panel to infer that this was intended and to consider each sub-allegation independently where it was appropriate to do so and was clear that they related to different issues.

Having considered the wording of those allegations, the Panel accepted that it was appropriate and fair to proceed on the basis that each sub-allegation may be considered independently when appropriate, without requiring formal amendment of the allegations.

The Panel determined therefore that where any allegation contained sub-allegations identified by Roman numerals, those sub-allegations could be considered individually where appropriate.

Admissions

The Member[…] had made no admissions.

Evidence before Panel

In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:

• The BACP’s bundle of evidence and exhibits.
• The Member[…] bundle of evidence.
• The written evidence and submissions of the original complainants, […] and […] and the BACP.
• The written evidence and submissions by the Member[…].
• The oral evidence from witness […] and witness […].
• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 (PCP).
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

Before making Findings on the Allegations, the Panel considered written submissions from […] Member[…] stating that […] function in this case was not acting as Counsellor […] or Psychotherapist […] but as Collaborative Consultant […] instructed to assist the Court in family proceedings. The Member[…] stated therefore that this matter was outside the remit of BACP and the Ethical Framework (EF) did not apply.

The Panel therefore considered the application of the EF to the work carried out by the Member […].

It noted that the EF states:

A practitioner is a member or registrant of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy who is providing therapeutically-informed services, particularly coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or using counselling skills.

It further states:

Therapeutically-informed services are developed from and informed by the theory and practices used in talking and listening therapies, typically coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or using counselling skills.

[…]

The Panel noted also that the Order of Sheriff […] dated 13 November Year 1 “Refers the parties to family therapy with [ME] […] and the letter of instruction to the Member […] from […] dated 6 December Year 1 states “You have been appointed as family therapist […] in this case…”.

The Panel found that the Member […] were using counselling skills to provide therapeutically-informed services in this case within the EF definition and accordingly, the EF was applicable to their conduct.

[…]
[…]
PCP […]
Allegation 1 – PROVED IN PART

1.1 The Panel found this allegation proved on a factual basis.

1.2 The Panel found this allegation proved on a factual basis.

1.3 The Panel took into account the evidence provided by […] in her witness statements and her oral evidence at the hearing regarding the meeting of 21 February Year 2 between her and ME. Whilst the Panel also had witness statements and oral evidence from […] on the Member […] alleged failure to advise […], it noted that […] was not present at the meeting of 21 February and was unable therefore to provide first hand evidence on what had happened in that meeting. It bore in mind that in order to find a failure to advise […], it must first be satisfied that ME had a duty to advise her in respect of each matter alleged. The Panel made the following findings:

(i) The Panel found that there was a duty on the Member to explain the service being provided. It heard evidence from […] stating that she understood that she would meet with ME to discuss how the family could move forward, and that there would be joint sessions with […], her former partner, and where appropriate their son. […] knew also that this was further to a court order directing family therapy in the proceedings. Whilst the Panel could not determine precisely what had been said in the meeting, it considered that […] understanding of the service being provided did not indicate that the Member had failed to explain the service being provided. It noted also that […] acknowledged having received a letter from ME before the first session explaining the basis of her appointment. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.

(ii) The Panel found that there was a duty on the Member to explain the purpose of the sessions. It noted that […] in her witness statement said “I understood that the purpose of the therapy was to improve the relationship between […], […] and myself”. She said that ME had told her “This was so that we could find a way for us to work together to provide support for […] . She also said “During this session we discussed what I was trying to achieve” and that ME “further mentioned that she hoped that she […] together could teach me and […] how to communicate with each other.” […] confirmed in her oral evidence to the Panel that the Member had discussed what she wanted to achieve from the sessions. The Panel found on the balance of probabilities that the discussions which took place between […] and ME demonstrated that the Member had appropriately explained the purpose of the sessions. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.

(iii) The Panel found that there was an express duty on the Member to explain confidentiality to […], as stated in Paragraph 31c of the EF. It noted that […] in her witness statement said “ME did not explain her duty of confidentiality”. In her oral evidence, she confirmed that she did not remember the issue of confidentiality being explained to her. The Panel had no evidence before it to suggest that confidentiality had been explained to […] and it therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.

(iv) The Panel noted that the requirement in the EF states that members must “establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients”. It did not find that the EF imposes on the Member an obligation to explain and establish professional boundaries at the initial meeting. The Panel did not consider it necessary therefore to consider whether the issue of boundaries had been discussed. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.

(v) The Panel found that the Member, having been appointed further to a court order, had a duty to advise […] about her responsibilities to […] and to the Court and how these were balanced. It noted that […] in her witness statement said “[ME] did not explain …. her duty to the Court and to me. She informed me that she can see that I found the matter distressing and had been a difficult period, but she did not elaborate on her duty.” […] also confirmed in her oral evidence to the Panel that this had not been discussed or explained to her at the initial meeting. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved.

(vi) The Panel found that the Member had a duty to set out the costs of the sessions. It noted that […] in her witness statement said: “The first meeting was for a duration of one hour and came to a total of £90. After this, it was mentioned that there would be joint sessions with […] . The joint sessions were double the price and I do not recall that this pricing came up in conversation until we were organising the first joint session, as I remember being surprised by this.” […] confirmed in her oral evidence that she had not understood that basis on which the different sessions would be charged, and that as a result, she was unable to attend many individual sessions with ME due to the costs involved. The Panel found therefore on the balance of probabilities that the Member had not clearly set out the costs of the sessions and it found this allegation proved.

(vii) The Panel found that the Member had a duty to advise […] on the length of sessions. It noted that […] in her witness statement said “Myra Eadie informed me the sessions would be up to two hours but the duration would be dependent on how each session was going.” In her oral evidence, […] confirmed that sessions were generally for one hour but were on occasion extended as necessary to facilitate discussions. The Panel found that although the information provided suggested that the duration of sessions may be imprecise, this was nevertheless clearly explained. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.

1.4 The Panel applied these findings to paragraph 31 a, b, c and d of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It concluded that the Member […] conduct in respect of allegations 1.3 (iii), (v) and (vi) amounted to a failure to meet professional standards in that it breached Paragraph 31, b, c and d of the EF. The Panel did not find that the Member[…] conduct breached Paragraph 31 a. This allegation was therefore found proved.

Allegation 2 – NOT PROVED
[…]

2.3 Having found Allegations 2.1 and 2.2 not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider whether ME’s conduct amounted to a breach of professional standards.

Allegation 3 – PROVED IN PART

3.1 The Panel accepted that as the person primarily responsible for representing […] interests, ME had a duty to acknowledge her feelings in the therapeutic setting. It noted that […] in her witness statement makes a number of references to feeling unsafe, feeling intimidated and pressurised and wishing to stop therapy. She states “I informed […] [ME] that I felt under attack and intimidated multiple times. I remember holding a cushion over my middle to comfort myself and I was not able to […].” She also states: “It was the next session after this incident that I informed [ME] […] that I did not want to continue with the therapy. I expressed my feelings in a letter and handed this to [ME] at the start of the session and she was the only one present in the room at the time. …. I stated in the letter that I felt threatened and that I was not being listened to. I also stated that I did not feel that […] and I were safe. ME read the letter in front of me and then placed it into her notebook. She said that she felt sorry that I felt that way and that was not her intention.”

[…] further stated that she decided not to continue with therapy because “any trust that we had was gone completely.”

In her oral evidence, […] stated that she felt unprotected and that if she did not do as […], they would take […] away. She said that she had understood that ME was there to protect her interests but she just “sat there scribbling away”.

The Panel noted that having received […] letter which addressed some (but not all) of her concerns, ME is reported to have said “I’m sorry you feel that way”. However, it did not consider that this constituted an adequate acknowledgement of […] feelings. The Panel found on the balance of probabilities that although ME was made aware of […] feelings in sessions both verbally and in writing, she failed to acknowledge or address those feelings. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved.

3.2 […]The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.

3.3 The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 12 and 25 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It found that ME’s failure to acknowledged […] feelings had not protected her client’s trust. It also found that in failing to acknowledge […] wish to stop therapy, she had not ensured that her client was participating on a voluntary basis. It concluded therefore that the Member […] conduct in respect of allegations 3.1(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), amounted to a failure to meet professional standards in that it breached Paragraphs 12 and 25 of the EF. This allegation was therefore found proved.

Allegation 4 – NOT PROVED

4.1 The Panel previously found at Allegation 1.3 (v) above that ME failed to explain to […] her duties to the court and her duty of transparency. The Panel heard oral evidence from […] which indicated that she did not fully understand ME’s responsibilities to the court and saw references to the court’s involvement as threats. The Panel found that ME had failed to adequately explain this to […], but there was no evidence that she had failed to manage those conflicting duties. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved in part.
4.2 The Panel applied these findings to paragraph 55 e of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It noted that this paragraph of the EF relates to the confidentiality and privacy of clients and imposes a requirement to ensure that all contractual requirements are mutually compatible. The Panel did not consider that there were any incompatible contractual requirements in relation to ME’s responsibilities and it therefore found this allegation not proved.

Allegation 5 – PROVED

5.1 The Panel had before it an electronic message dated 19 November Year 2 from […] to ME saying “Can I remind you that I have asked for a copy of my notes and also […]…” ME responded stating “My reports are available to you but not my notes”. […] messaged further asking “Can I ask why I can't have access to my own notes and as the responsible parent the notes regarding my son?” to which ME replied “They are my notes […] not yours”. Having reviewed the exchange of messages, the Panel found that ME had refused to provide copies of session notes when requested by […]. There was however no evidence to suggest that […] had requested the notes. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved.
5.2 The Panel applied these findings to paragraph 44 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. The Panel found that the Member[…] conduct in refusing to provide session notes was not open and communicative and therefore breached Paragraph 44. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved.

Allegation 6 – NOT PROVED

6.1 The Panel found this allegation proved on a factual basis.
6.2 In view of its earlier findings that the Member was providing therapeutically-informed services, the Panel found that this statement was factually inaccurate.
6.3 The Panel had no information before it to suggest that the Member knew that the statement was inaccurate, rather than that she genuinely believed the statement to be true. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.
6.4 Whilst it was factually correct that the Member made the statement to avoid being the subject of the complaint, the Panel found that this would not be inappropriate if the Member genuinely believed the statement to be true. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved.
6.5 Having found that there was no evidence that ME had deliberately made an inaccurate statement, the Panel did not go on to consider whether her conduct amounted to a breach of professional standards.

[…]

Allegation 1 – PROVED IN PART

1.1 The Panel found this allegation proved on a factual basis.

1.2 The Panel found this allegation proved on a factual basis.

1.3 The Panel previously found Allegation 1.3 (iii), (v) and (vi) in […] proved in respect of […]. In considering this allegation, the Panel considered the Member […] duty to […]. The Panel bore in mind that […] was a minor at the time of sessions and there may therefore have been some administrative matters, such as the costs of the sessions, which it was not necessary to explain to him. The Panel accepted that other matters, for example the purpose of the sessions and confidentiality, which it was necessary to explain to […] as a party to the sessions. However, it noted that […] accepted when questioned by the Panel that she had not been present in every session involving ME and […] and she could not therefore give first hand evidence regarding what was explained to him. Witness […] was not present at any of the sessions and was also unable to give such evidence. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved in its entirety in relation to […].

1.4 In view of its findings at 1.3 above, the Panel found that ME’s conduct amounted to a breach of Paragraphs 31 b, c and d in relation to […] for the reasons previously given in allegation 1.4 in […]. The Panel did not go on to consider whether her conduct amounted to a breach in respect of […].

Allegation 2 – NOT PROVED

[…]
2.3 Having found Allegations 2.1 and 2.2 not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider whether ME’s conduct amounted to a breach of professional standards.

Allegation 3 – NOT PROVED

3.1 As stated in relation to previous allegations, […] acknowledged that she had not been present in every session involving ME and […] and she could not therefore give first hand evidence regarding what had been explained to him. Witness […] was not present at any of the sessions and was also unable to give such evidence. There was no evidence to suggest that ME had failed to manage her conflicting duties to […] and the court. The Panel therefore found this Allegation not proved as regards […]. With regard to […] the Panel found this allegation proved in part for the reasons set out in allegation 4.1 in […]

3.2 Having found Allegation 3.1 not proved with regard to […], the Panel did not go on to consider whether ME’s conduct amounted to a breach of professional standards. With regard to […] whilst the Panel had found allegation 3.1 proved in part, it did not find allegation 3.2 proved for the reasons set out in allegation 4.2 in […]

Allegation 4 - PROVED

4.1 The Panel noted the exchange of messages previously cited in relation to Allegation 5.1 of […] above. It bore in mind that the considerations regarding disclosure of notes to […] may have been different in relation to […] notes, as it may not have been appropriate to disclose all notes relating to sessions with […] where […] was not present. However, the Panel noted that ME had refused to provide any session notes and it therefore found this allegation proved.

4.2 The Panel applied these findings to paragraph 44 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. The Panel found that the Member […] conduct in refusing to provide session notes was not open and communicative and therefore breached Paragraph 44. The Panel therefore found this Allegation proved.

Allegation 5 – NOT PROVED

5.1 As previously stated in relation to allegation 6.1 in […], the Panel found this Allegation proved on a factual basis.

5.2 As previously stated in relation to Allegation 6.2 in […], the Panel found that this statement was factually inaccurate.

5.3 For the reasons stated in Allegation 6.3 in […], the Panel found this Allegation not proved.

5.4 For the reasons stated in Allegation 6.4 in[…], the Panel found this Allegation not proved

5.5 Having found that there was no evidence that ME had deliberately made an inaccurate statement, the Panel did not go on to consider whether her conduct amounted to a breach of professional standards.

Professional Misconduct

The Panel went on to consider whether ME’s actions that it had found proved in relation to Allegations 1.3 (iii), (v) and (vi), 3.1 and 5.1 of […], Allegation 1.3 (iii), (v) and (vi) (as it applies to […] and 4.1 of […] amounted to Professional Misconduct, as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:

‘professional misconduct means 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 Panel also noted the guidance in the BACP Protocol 14: Guidance on Sanctions, which sets out the following criteria that may result in a decision that suspension or withdrawal of membership is appropriate:

1. Where the Member has knowingly and deliberately behaved in a way to cause harm to the Complainant or other members of the public;

2. Where the Member has been dishonest or lacked integrity;

3. Where the complaint involves sexual misconduct;

4. Where the Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards;

5. Where the Member has abused their position or another’s trust;

6. Where the harm to the Complainant is particularly severe;

7. Where the Member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, their behaviour; and

8. Any other factors the Decision Maker considers warrant withdrawal of membership.

Having considered and applied the guidance set out above, the Panel concluded that none of the allegations found proved amounted to professional misconduct as defined.

Decision

The Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Member ME had failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that she had acted contrary to paragraphs 12, 25, 31 b, c and d, and 44 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

[…]

The Panel reconvened on 7 August Year 8 to consider what sanction, if any, is appropriate in the circumstances of Ms Myra Eadie’s case. The panel reminded itself that the former Member did not attend the hearing and did not respond to the hearing decision by way of providing a submission for the Panel to consider at the sanction stage.

The Panel reminded itself of its findings on the allegations, and that it did not find any of the proven allegations amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined in BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel in considering the appropriate sanction have taken into account the interests of public protection and determined that it is reasonable and proportionate that the Member is subject to the following sanction(s) under BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 Section 5.12 Sanction:

1. The Member is to undertake 12 total hours of training on the following topics within 3 months of the signed decision being received:

a. The importance of client trust.

b. The importance of contracting, client confidentiality and communication.

c. The importance of client autonomy and free will.

2. The Member must provide a reflective statement within 4 months of the signed decision being received addressing:

a What went wrong in this case

b The impact of her conduct on the client, BACP and the counselling professions

c What she has learned from the training undertaken pursuant to this sanction

d What changes she has made to her practice to avoid a repetition of what went wrong in this case

3. In the reflective statement the Member must also confirm whether she is currently a practising counsellor with a supervisor and, if so, that the statement has been discussed with her supervisor within a structured supervision session.

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