Practice Innovations

Recommendations for Establishing or Expanding a Successful Forensic

Psychology Practice
David W. Thompson and I. Frumkin
Online First Publication, March 2, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pri0000203

CITATION
Thompson, D. W., & Frumkin, I. (2023, March 2). Recommendations for Establishing or Expanding a Successful Forensic
Psychology Practice. Practice Innovations. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pri0000203
 Practice Innovations
© 2023 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 2377-889X https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000203

Recommendations for Establishing or Expanding a Successful Forensic

Psychology Practice
David W. Thompson1 and I. Frumkin2
1
Clinical Psychology Associates, LLC, Burlington, Wisconsin
2
Forensic and Clinical Psychology Associates, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Forensic psychology is a well-established specialty psychology practice area. While it is

attractive for a variety of reasons (e.g., freedom from managed care contracts), forensic
psychology practice requires a unique skill set and careful consideration of a variety of
professional, ethical, and business practices. This article provides a review of these issues
as well as several alternative practice models for psychologists considering initiating,
expanding, or otherwise modifying their forensic work.

Clinical Impact Statement

Forensic psychology involves the intersection of psychological science and matters
involving the legal system. This article compares and contrasts the traditional clinical
psychology practice with that of forensic psychology. The article discusses issues that
a psychologist should consider when initiating a forensic practice or adding forensic
services to an existing clinical practice, and offers suggestions for successfully mov-
ing forward with such plans.

Keywords: forensic psychology, practice models, hybrid

The United States system of jurisprudence is cross-examination by attorneys, litigators often

an adversarial system that depends on the presen-
tation of evidence, including testimony by wit-
nesses, to assist the trier of fact ( judge or jury)
in making decisions. There are two types of wit-
nesses—lay witnesses, who are restricted to tes-
tifying about factual things (such as what the
witness observed or did), and expert witnesses,
who are allowed (based on their education,
knowledge, or experience) to offer opinions to
help the trier of fact better understand the evi-
dence or facts at issue. Because the system is
adversarial and depends on seeking the truth
through a rigorous process of examination and
David W. Thompson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0344-4980
No funding was provided for this article and neither author
has any financial interests to disclose in this article. The
authors are grateful to two unidentified reviewers and the
guest editor who provided valuable feedback on earlier drafts
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to David W. Thompson, Clinical Psychology
Associates, LLC, 197 W. Chestnut St., Suite 100, Burlington,
WI, United States. Email: dthompson@clinicpsych.com
1
benefit from expert consultation. Forensic psy-
chologists are often called as either expert wit-
nesses or litigation consultants.
Forensic psychology is the application of psy-
chological principles and techniques to situations
involving the law or legal systems (both criminal
and civil). Its functions include assessment,
diagnosis, and treatment of offenders and others,
provision of advocacy and expert testimony,
and research and policy analysis. This
article seeks to provide guidance for psycho-
logists considering adding or increasing fore-
nsic psychological services to their practice.
Although the authors emphasize issues surround-
ing forensic evaluations, other forensic psycho-
logical activities are discussed as well.
Legal Recognition of Expertise
In the landmark case, Jenkins v. United States
(1962), the court ruled that a lower court erred
when instructing a jury to disregard the testimony
of three defense psychologists who stated the
defendant had a mental disease when he
 2 THOMPSON AND FRUMKIN
committed the crimes charged. In that appellate
case, Judge David Bazelon, circuit judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, discussed the training of psychologists,
mentioned that board-certified psychologists
(by the American Board of Examiners in
Professional Psychology, now the America
Board of Professional Psychology) should ordi-
narily qualify as expert witnesses, and held that
the “lack of a medical degree” and a “lesser degree
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of responsibility for patient care … are not auto-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
matic disqualifications” (¶¶645–646). The court
further concluded that the trial judge should
make a finding regarding the individual qualifica-
tions of each challenged expert. Since that deci-
sion, the rejection of psychologists in their field
of specialization may be considered a trial error.
Forensic Psychologist Roles
Forensic psychologists fill many different roles
within the legal system. For example, in criminal
matters a psychologist might be involved in proce-
dural assessments (e.g., competency to proceed
with the trial in criminal matters), retrospective
assessments of a person’s mental state or compe-
tence (e.g., a suspect’s ability to knowingly, intel-
ligently, and voluntarily give up Miranda rights
against self-incrimination and legal representation
when questioned by the police), and post-
adjudication activities such as pre-sentencing
reports addressing defendant-specific concerns.
There are numerous additional roles available to
forensic psychologists in a variety of contexts, a
sample of which is offered in Table 1.
Forensic psychologists can work with attor-
neys in an exclusively consultative role or they
can be employed as an evaluating psychologist
who may testify as an expert witness. Expert wit-
nesses are those that provide information to the
court that is outside of common knowledge.
Generally, one should be very cautious about
agreeing to work in both capacities. It is believed
that advocacy for one side in the consultant role
and then later serving as an evaluator and expert
witness diminishes one’s perceived objectivity
(Drogin & Barrett, 2013). Yet it is common
in the military justice system for forensic psy-
chologists and other experts to serve both as
trial consultants and testifying forensic scientists
(Gottlieb & Younggren, 2019). In that context, it
is not considered to be a problematic dual role
and in that system, it works quite well.
This concept of dual roles may present itself in
a variety of ways in a forensic context. An eval-
uating and testifying psychologist may be asked
to critique the work product of another psychol-
ogist, particularly if the results of the other
psychologist’s work are substantially different
from the results of the reviewing psychologist.
Indeed, psychologists should expect their
work product to be carefully scrutinized and cri-
tiqued by other professionals, and understand
that this process is simply part of the adversarial
legal system. Attorneys often ask their testifying
psychologist to assist them in preparing cross-
examination questions for the opposing expert,
as the application of the forensic psychologist’s
specialized knowledge and training is frequently
helpful to fully understand the nuances of the
opposing expert’s opinions. The preparation of
cross-examination questions might assist the
retaining attorney in understanding deficiencies
in the opposing expert’s methods, and providing
the requested assistance can often be accom-
plished by the forensic psychologist without vio-
lating ethical principles or otherwise exceeding
the psychologist’s scope of acceptable practice.
There are, however, some limitations on the
extent to which a testifying psychologist should
provide consultation services or vice versa. The
authors suggest that the question in such situa-
tions relates to the extent to which the forensic
psychologist is likely to be perceived as an advo-
cate for the client or the subject of the litigation as
opposed to an advocate for the psychologist’s
opinion, as well as the extent to which the psy-
chologist’s objectivity is likely to be compro-
mised by engaging in both roles. Factors to
consider include the nature of the psychologist’s
consultation (e.g., identifying factual inaccura-
cies or logical fallacies in another expert’s work
vs. drafting ad hominem attacks), jurisdictional
considerations (e.g., some licensing boards may
adopt strict stances on consultation while such
services are the norm in other jurisdictions such
as military courts), and the extent to which the
forensic psychologist is identified as a member
of the defense or plaintiff/prosecution team rather
than an impartial expert.
Clinical Versus Forensic Practice Roles
Before deciding to undertake forensic psy-
chology work and to establish a forensic
practice, it is important for the clinician to
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE 3

Table 1
Forensic Psychologist Roles
Role Sample activities
Civil Child protection or dependency evaluations; A variety of assessments including those of emotional damage
in civil suits, disability and workman’s comp claims, employment discrimination cases, sexual
harassment claims, and hostile work environment litigation; Psychological assessment for high-risk
occupations such as air traffic controllers, law enforcement officers, pilots, and firefighters; Forensic
examinations related to discrimination against persons covered under the Americans with Disabilities
Act; Assessment of civil competencies such as the need for guardianship or protective placement or other
substituted judgment questions including the ability of a person to make informed medical decisions;
Assessing claims regarding the need for an emotional support animal; Civil commitment and involuntary
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

psychiatric hospitalization including the evaluations and involuntary hospitalization of mentally

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

disordered sexual offenders; Class action suits regarding living conditions within hospitals, correctional
facilities, nursing homes, and other residential facilities; The impact of trademarks and logos on products
in cases involving claims of patent and trademark infringements; Testimony on human factors such as the
impact of a machine or instrument design as it relates to human interaction.
Criminal Juvenile court evaluations including transfer of a case to or from adult court, violence and sexual risk
assessments, and post-adjudication assessments of treatment and placement needs; Competency to
proceed in both juvenile and adult courts; Assessment of mental state at the time of offense/criminal
responsibility; Mitigation and aggravation factors in sentencing determinations; Competency to waive
one’s Miranda rights at the time of an interrogation; Assessment of factors related to disputed confessions
including the personality of the suspect, the behavior of the interrogators, and the impact of contextual
factors for suspects falsely confessing to a crime; Violence and sexual risk assessments; Testimony on
issues related to human memory including various vulnerabilities to memory reliability, factors related to
eye witness reports, and the effects of substance use on memory.
Domestic/family Child custody evaluations; Immigration evaluations; Parent coordination activities in post-divorce cases.
Consultant Assisting attorneys in preparing for voir dire (the preliminary questioning of a juror by a judge or legal
counsel); Assisting in jury selection; Providing feedback to expert witnesses during trial preparation;
Assisting in jury simulations; Developing questions for an attorney to use in voir dire or
cross-examination of other experts; Review of the reports and work products of other experts;
Development of trial strategies for attorneys.
Public policy Consultation to law makers; Testimony regarding public policy issues such as life without parole sentences
for youthful offenders or the impact of sex offender registration laws.

understand the differences between assessment
for a treatment-oriented practice and assessment
and consultation for forensic practice. Both of
these types of practice will involve utilizing clin-
ical skills. In one type of endeavor, clinical skills
are used to assist in treatment planning and the
provision of therapy. In the other type of practice,
these skills are used for legal purposes. This arti-
cle will primarily deal with issues pertaining to
forensic assessment and will not cover in-depth
issues pertaining to the treatment of forensic or
correctional populations, research, policy analy-
sis, or the forensic work done by social or devel-
opmental psychologists employed primarily in
university settings.
There are major differences between a therapeu-
tic and a forensic assessment. A number of authors
(e.g., Denny & Sullivan, 2008; Greenberg &
Shuman, 1997; Heilbrun, 2001; Melton et al.,
2018) have delineated the differences between
therapeutic and forensic evaluations. While there
are slight differences between these various per-
spectives, the differences are less substantive and
more related to the ways in which basic premises
are categorized.
Working in the forensic context is more than
just conducting a traditional clinical assessment
and providing that assessment to the attorneys
or the court. As a brief example, some of the dif-
ferences between a clinical and a forensic assess-
ment are offered in Table 2.
In addition to the assessment issues presented
in Table 2, there are a variety of other differences
that should be considered by the clinician consid-
ering the provision of forensic services. For
example, there are specific legal concepts that
govern the admissibility of work completed
for an attorney (known as the attorney work prod-
uct privilege) of which the forensic practitioner
must be aware so as to avoid potentially com-
promising the rights of the examinee, and these
rules may change depending upon the jurisdic-
tion or the nature of the psychologist’s relation-
ship with the referring or funding party (e.g.,
court-appointed or attorney-referred matter).
These issues can quickly become prominent in
 4 THOMPSON AND FRUMKIN
Table 2
Clinical Versus Forensic Assessment Practice
Issue Clinical practice
Who hired the Usually the person seeking services.
psychologist, and
who is the client?
Who is paying the Usually the person seeking services through
psychologist? either a private payment agreement or an
insurance claim, or both.
Obligations of the To serve the interests of the person seeking
psychologist services (the client).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Role of consultation The psychologist may seek consultation or
clinical collaboration to obtain a different
perspective on a case or to address specific
issues such as medication or other
questions that may be outside of the
psychologist’s area of expertise.
Assessment of effort or The psychologist is sensitive to issues related
malingering to effort and malingering, depending on the
nature of the assessment.
Choice of assessment The psychologist is familiar with and
instruments competent to utilize psychological tests
used to evaluate clinical concerns.
Risk management The psychologist is aware of potential issues
that may arise within the therapeutic
relationship and takes steps to avoid them
and to address them if they are present.
Documentation The psychologist properly documents the
services provided using clinical guidelines
offered by the American Psychological
Association or the Center for Medicaid and
Medicare Services.
Court testimony Generally not expected, and potentially
harmful to the client-therapist relationship.
See the Pitfalls section, below.
Nature of relationship Doctor–patient relationship; clinician
advocates for client.
Initial interview Chief complaint, relevant background history, Who is the client, what is the purpose of the
components family history, previous treatment attempts,
current mental status, diagnostic
formulation, informed consent,
preliminary treatment plan.
Forensic practice
Usually an attorney, the court, or another agency
(e.g., a school), not the person to be evaluated.
Usually the entity that hired the psychologist,
sometimes the subject of the evaluation, and never
a health insurance company.
To provide an objective, complete, and accurate
assessment to the trier of fact (the court or the
jury).
Consultation is likely to be more limited and
focused, and should be coordinated with the entity
that hired the psychologist so as to avoid issues
related to privilege. In contrast to a clinical
consultation, the forensic questions to be
addressed are often more focused and specific,
such as the impact of a specific condition on a
subject’s decision making or comprehension of a
specific situation at a very specific time.
Moreover, exceeding the scope of one’s
engagement (e.g., adding an opinion on a
subject’s mental state at the time of offense when
one was retained to complete an assessment of the
subject’s competency to stand trial) might
compromise the retaining attorney’s defense
strategy.
The psychologist almost always considers the
likelihood of impression management, and is
aware of how to collect data to inform an opinion
on this issue.
In addition to clinical assessment instruments, the
psychologist is familiar with specific forensic
assessment instruments such as those used to
assess response style, various forms of
competency, and other forensic-specific
questions.
The psychologist is aware of the heightened need for
risk management, and takes extra steps to avoid
problems (e.g., through more detailed informed
consent procedures) and to address them if they
are present. For example, the psychologist is
aware of the benefits of court appointment in
some cases, as well as the need to purchase good
licensing board defense insurance.
The psychologist recognizes the need for additional
attention to detail when documenting activities,
and understands the requirement to preserve
records in anticipation of external scrutiny of
one’s methods and work.
Routinely expected.
No doctor-patient relationship; psychologist is
objective advocate for his or her own opinion.
evaluation, determine the scope of services
sought, discuss limitations of confidentiality and
privilege, identify collateral information sources,
obtain informed assent or consent, identify next
steps for evaluation.
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE
some cases (see, e.g., the Pitfalls section below),
requiring that the forensic practitioner have
timely access to competent legal counsel. The
related legal concept of attorney-client privilege
is established by statute and may vary somewhat
among jurisdictions. For example, §905.03,
Wisconsin Statutes, defines Lawyer-Client
Privilege, sets forth the exceptions to the privi-
lege, and specifies who may claim the privilege
on behalf of the client. Therapist–patient privi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lege, however, is a more complicated
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
matter. Each state has its own statute governing
doctor–patient privilege, and the Federal Rules
of Evidence (FRE 501) specifically addresses
the varying circumstances under which either
the federal or state rules or statutes apply and
also extends the privilege to the psychotherapist-
patient relationship. The forensic practitioner
must not confuse the concept of privilege with
that of confidentiality, which applies to the
out-of-court disclosure of medical records and
information and is governed by various state
statutes and federal statutes such as the HIPAA
Privacy Act.
Melton et al. (2018) describe diagnoses or
treatment needs as being background rather
than foreground issues in the forensic context.
The goal of the forensic evaluation is to provide
information to the referral source to assist in
either legal decision-making or to help plan for
a legal case. Ethical and moral responsibilities
exist to ensure that the individual being evaluated
has rights protected as well as ensuring the indi-
vidual does not harm themself or others.
Although this section has focused on the dif-
ferences between clinical and forensic assess-
ment, there are other non-assessment areas of
forensic practice that differ significantly from
clinical settings. Some examples include serving
as a rebuttal witness in court, providing parenting
coordination services in divorce matters, and pro-
viding jury consulting and other litigation-related
services. While practice in these areas requires
specific skill sets and an in-depth discussion of
these practice areas is beyond the scope of this arti-
cle, psychologists nonetheless must also under-
stand the legal system and the ways in which
it works, including various legal constructs and
specific procedures applicable to their specialty
areas, as well as both statutes and relevant
case law.
Heilbrun (2001) addresses the differences in
data sources in the therapeutic versus forensic
5
evaluation. Most therapeutic evaluations, partic-
ularly prior to starting therapy, involve only a
clinical interview, although there are notable
exceptions such as obtaining collateral informa-
tion when treating children or obtaining medical
information when providing substance abuse
treatment services. Even when psychological
testing is conducted, the primary source of data
comes from the person being evaluated. A foren-
sic evaluation customarily involves the use of
multiple data sources apart from the information
provided by the person being evaluated. While
this may include extensive psychological testing,
the forensic practitioner often makes use of
behavioral observations and reports of others,
may interview individuals who have had contact
with the subject being evaluated, and reviews
a host of other third-party data. It is not auto-
matically assumed that the evaluated individual
is providing reliable or valid data. Associated
with this is the need to assess for minimization
or exaggeration of cognitive and/or psychologi-
cal symptomatology. In the therapeutic context,
since the client is coming for help, there is the
assumption of honesty and straightforwardness
in the presentation of symptoms (again, with
some exceptions such as substance use disorder
treatment or marital conflict). In the forensic con-
text, one cannot make that assumption.
Hybrid Practice
Psychologists may choose to have both a ther-
apeutic and clinical assessment practice as well
as a forensic practice. It is important to separate
these practices to avoid conflicts of interest.
Whereas it is tempting to accept as a therapy
client someone whom you have evaluated for a
forensic purpose, doing so may be problematic.
For example, consider the case where one is
assessing risk factors associated with sexual
offense recidivism for sentencing purposes. As
part of your report or testimony, you opine that
risk is greatly reduced if the individual partici-
pates in group sex offender treatment. This indi-
vidual is mandated into treatment. The court
would like you to do the therapy since you have
such therapy groups as part of your clinical prac-
tice. Although it is tempting to accept the referral,
particularly when all parties are encouraging you
to do so, it is not advisable. First, when you did
the initial evaluation, your client was the attorney
who retained you, who wanted to know the risk
 6 THOMPSON AND FRUMKIN
for recidivism. In this new role, your client is the
person you are seeing for therapy but also the
court that requires feedback concerning this indi-
vidual’s progress. What do you do if in therapy
the client discloses information to the group
inconsistent with what you learned about during
the evaluation? What if the court desires another
evaluation to assess risk after a year in treatment?
An evaluation for a forensic purpose is different
than one for clinical purposes. How do you
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
now disentangle yourself from the therapist role
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to the forensic evaluator and how does that
impact the therapy?
It is the authors’ belief that even serving as a
fact witness to the court regarding a client’s treat-
ment can harm a therapeutic relationship (see
Combining Clinical and Forensic Roles, below).
Pitfalls
In forensic practice, situations arise that cre-
ate conflict between various practice require-
ments. As an example, consider the forensic
psychologist who, while assessing a juvenile
defendant, learns that the child was sexually
abused. The obligations of the psychologist as
a mandatory reporter of child abuse are now
potentially in direct conflict with the attorney
work product doctrine. The psychologist must
meet legal and professional reporting obliga-
tions while simultaneously considering the
potential impact of such actions on the privilege
afforded to the work being undertaken by the
psychologist in the juvenile’s legal case. This
situation reflects the need for timely and accu-
rate independent legal consultation for the
forensic practitioner.
Consider also the various statutes that govern
access to the psychologist’s records. Persons
that are evaluated in a forensic context are more
likely to be litigious than are those in many clin-
ical contexts, and requests or demands for
records, including test data, are likely to be pre-
sented to the forensic psychologist. A strong
grasp of both local and federal rules concerning
the release of information is of particular impor-
tance to the forensic practitioner.
A variety of privacy issues may arise that are
more specific to forensic practice. Psychologists
in forensic practice are frequently asked to provide
raw test data (i.e., a subject’s actual responses to
test questions, often as photocopies of test record
forms) to attorneys representing the opposing
point of view. In the author’s experience, many
practitioners mistakenly believe that the release
of such data is prohibited under the APA Ethical
Principals and Code of Conduct (American
Psychological Association, 2017a), when it is
actually clear that the data may need to be released
(Principle 9.04) and the psychologist in forensic
practice should be prepared for such requests
(American Psychological Association, 2013,
Guidelines 10.06 & 10.07). For some practition-
ers, this raises questions about copyright infrin-
gement, which can be satisfactorily addressed
through the use of a protective order from the
court. Knowing the difference between raw test
data (described above) and “test materials” (the
specific test materials used when administering
an instrument, such as the actual test questions,
the test manual, or stimulus material) as well as
consultation with more experienced colleagues
or pursuing formal legal advice in these circum-
stances is often helpful.
There are also situations under which a foren-
sic psychologist may withhold the release of data.
While some such situations are jurisdiction-
specific (e.g., when there are statutory restrictions
on the release of data to specific parties), others
relate to circumstances under which the psychol-
ogist reasonably believes that the release of
data may cause injury to an individual or when
questions of privilege exist. For these reasons
timely access to competent legal consultations
is imperative.
Attorneys operate under different ethical and
professional guidelines than do psychologists.
At times an attorney may inform a psychologist
that engaging in a specific behavior or activity,
such as testifying about certain matters or mov-
ing from a therapeutic to a forensic role, is accept-
able. The forensic psychologist must nonetheless
strive to follow professional guidelines and must
strictly adhere to ethical requirements. Doing so
protects the integrity of the individual psycholo-
gist and the profession as a whole, protects the
rights and privileges of the examinee or subject
in question, and assists the attorney in properly
utilizing the specialized knowledge and skills
of the forensic practitioner.
Unanticipated difficulties also may occur
when transitioning from a clinical to a forensic
practice, and these may interact with the new
practice model chosen by the psychologist. For
example, many courts have their own set of inter-
nal schedules and related timelines, and
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE
discovery deadlines, trial dates, and the other
demands of the court system may well interfere
with the provision of clinical services to individ-
uals in a hybrid practice or even when transition-
ing from a clinical to a purely forensic model.
While prior notice to clinical clients and the
maintenance of flexible office hours may attenu-
ate some of these challenges, clinicians and ther-
apy clients alike may find these unexpected
events disruptive.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
There are other negative aspects of forensic
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
psychology practice that must be considered.
For example, the overhead for such a practice
can reasonably be expected to be higher than
for general clinical practice. The need for more
comprehensive documentation, records manage-
ment, test materials, and legal resources requires
the budgeting of additional funds, as do higher
costs for additional professional liability insur-
ance coverage for licensing board complaints,
technology, and training. Additional unbillable
time may be required to remain current with
changes in one’s practice areas. The forensic psy-
chologist must devote additional time needed to
thoroughly prepare for voir dire and both direct
and cross-examination (usually billable), as
well as the time required to juggle demanding
court schedules and attorney meetings. This
issue of preparation for voir dire is of particular
importance, as entire volumes have been written
providing step-by-step instructions for challeng-
ing the expertise of psychiatric and psychological
experts (e.g., Faust, 2012).
Combining Clinical and Forensic Roles
It is a general belief in the field that the
prudent psychologist does not intermingle a
therapist role with that of a forensic role in the
same case. In fact, the Specialty Guidelines for
Forensic Psychologists (American Psychological
Association, 2013), state in Guideline 4.0,
Multiple Relationships, “Forensic practitioners
strive to recognize the potential conflict of interest
and threats to objectivity inherent in multiple rela-
tionships … and they seek to minimize any detri-
mental effects by avoiding involvement in such
matters whenever feasible or limiting their assis-
tance in a manner that is consistent with profes-
sional obligations.” Indeed, some states have
laws prohibiting psychologists from engaging in
certain types of dual relationships (e.g., Florida
Statutes, Chapter 64B19-18.007(1)).
7
Heltzel (2007) advocates that the role of ther-
apist and expert witness is compatible because,
in part, a therapist is ethically bound to maintain
a reasonable objectivity toward his or her client
and would conduct an evaluation appropriate to
lay the proper foundation for both therapy
and expert testimony. This belief, while shared
by some practitioners, does not appear to be the
mainstream position of those doing forensic psy-
chology work and would not seem to be consis-
tent with professional guidelines (e.g., American
Psychological Association, 2010, 2013).
It is the authors’ belief that a therapeutic rela-
tionship can be damaged when a therapist testi-
fies in court on behalf of the client. Not only is
the client observing his or her therapist being
cross-examined and engaged in behaviors apart
from the context of therapy, but the therapist
may give data to the court which presents the cli-
ent in less than a positive light in some small
fashion (even if the bulk of the testimony is pos-
itive). This can harm the therapy and disrupt the
therapeutic relationship. Moreover, in that the
therapist is considered, and should be considered,
an advocate for his or her client, the testimony
that ensues may not be viewed by the court as
objective. Finally, the therapist has generally
not done the type of assessment that matches
the rigor of a forensic evaluation. Therapists are
usually not going to assess for malingering or
defensiveness because of the nature of the thera-
peutic relationship. While a therapist may access
past therapeutic records, the quantity of third-
party data that is relied upon is usually less than
the evaluation done in a forensic context.
There are, nonetheless, times at which a thera-
pist is required to testify. The prudent clinician
should anticipate such events and, whenever pos-
sible, address them proactively. When accepting
a new treatment client, for example, the psychol-
ogist can discuss their position on testifying,
explain the concern about damage to the thera-
peutic relationship, and discuss their office poli-
cies concerning such requests to testify. An
accurate description of the psychologist’s fees
for forensic as opposed to clinical work as well
as an explanation as to exactly what the psychol-
ogist could and could not testify if called is often
sufficient to deter unnecessary demands, in the
authors’ experiences. These discussions, as well
as office policies that include the referral of treat-
ment clients to new providers in the event the
psychologist is required to testify, are often
 8 THOMPSON AND FRUMKIN
sufficient to address the issue. If the treating psy-
chologist is required to testify, however, the ther-
apist should be honest and responsive to the
questions posed while simultaneously consider-
ing the potential for bias in their testimony. If
the therapist answers questions requiring opin-
ions (as opposed to factual testimony), he or he
should be prepared to explain the underlying
basis for such opinions.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Establishing Competence
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Clinical competence is a necessary but not suf-
ficient requirement for forensic competence. A
forensic psychologist must also understand the
legal system, legal constructs (such as attorney-
client work product doctrine, discussed earlier
in this article), legal procedures, relevant statutes,
and the presence and impact of case law. While
some of this competence comes from experience,
it is also essential for the forensic practitioner to
supplement formal training with specialized
course work, seminars, or workshops from pro-
grams approved by the American Psychological
Association, forensic psychology or psychiatry
organizations (such as the American Academy
of Psychiatry and the Law and the American
Academy of Forensic Psychology), or university
or professional psychology training programs. In
addition to obtaining continuing education and
professional development through workshops
and seminars, one also must be current on the
forensic psychology literature in the particular
specialty area in which one is practicing. The
forensic specialist must also possess strong clin-
ical assessment skills and must be current in their
knowledge of the research and literature on the
various psychological tests that are in use.
Psychologists are reminded that we have an eth-
ical obligation to practice only within our areas
of competence (Principle 2.01(a), American
Psychological Association, 2017a). Practitioners
can develop new areas of competence in addi-
tional practice specialties through additional train-
ing, supervised experience, consultation, and
study (Principal 2.01(c)).
A forensic psychologist is usually not compe-
tent in all areas of forensic psychology. A cus-
tody evaluation, for example, is quite different
from an evaluation of criminal responsibility,
and both are quite different from an evaluation
of psychological damages relevant to a sexual
harassment claim. Although it may seem
tempting from a business perspective, one should
usually not accept every forensic evaluation
referral that comes one’s way. We argue that
the forensic psychologist who possesses high
skill levels in several specific sub-specialties in
the field gets more business in the long term
than a forensic psychologist who does a little
bit of everything. It is simply unreasonable to
expect someone to have the knowledge base to
work at the highest levels in all domains within
forensic psychology.
Practice Models
There are advantages and disadvantages to
both solo and group practice models. As noted
above, one’s practice model can be a forensic-
only model or can combine both clinical and
forensic practice. In the paragraphs to follow
we will discuss the advantages and disadvan-
tages associated with these various approaches
to service provision.
Solo Practice
A solo practitioner has complete control of the
practice. The psychologist enjoys a decreased
need for formal office space, support staff, file
storage, and related expenses. General office over-
head such as hazard insurance, premises mainte-
nance, and such can also be reduced. The solo
practitioner enjoys complete freedom for schedul-
ing, as well.
There are downsides to being a solo practi-
tioner, however. Professional consultation is not
as readily available to the solo practitioner, and
the solo practitioner’s subspecialty areas limit
the scope of services available to referral sources.
The solo practitioner is entirely responsible for
website development and maintenance, client
billing, collections, scheduling, and business
promotion.
Group Practice
A group forensic practice also has its advan-
tages. Within such a practice, individual special-
ists can assist each other when it comes to
preparing for testimony or cross-examination,
challenges to one’s work, and ethical dilemmas
that can easily arise in forensic practice. A group
practice can share relevant assessment materials,
computer hardware and software, office overhead,
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE
professional journals and books, and responsibili-
ties for practice management. Group practitioners
can also provide support and encouragement
when various practice members are confronted
with particularly challenging cases or court expe-
riences. A multispecialty group of forensic practi-
tioners can also best meet the diverse needs of
various referral sources.
The disadvantages of a group forensic practice
include the potential for one practitioner’s work to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
interfere with another practice member’s efforts in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
a separate case. For example, a psychologist’s
expert testimony in one case may be taken out
of context or otherwise used to impeach another
group member’s testimony. Conversely, it is
important for members of a group practice to
take steps to avoid conflicts in cases. For example,
it would be inappropriate for a group practice
member to participate in the opposing side or pro-
vide consulting services to opposing counsel on a
case in which a group member was already
retained. A group practice also requires that testing
materials and equipment be managed properly so
that one psychologist is not unexpectedly denied
access, and the usual group practice challenges
of managing office space will apply.
Hybrid Practice
A third, somewhat hybrid model to consider is
that of a combined clinical and forensic practice.
Whereas the same advantages and disadvantages
of a solo practice versus a group practice may
also apply, there are additional factors to consider
with a combined practice model. A psychologist
who provides both clinical and forensic services,
as noted above, must be vigilant about maintain-
ing boundaries between the two areas. It is gener-
ally not appropriate for the clinician to utilize
his or her forensic skills by presenting expert
testimony related to a clinical client. It is also
rarely appropriate for a psychologist who has pro-
vided forensic services to subsequently provide
therapeutic services, although there are some
exceptions, such as in programs to restore compe-
tency to proceed with trial.
There may be a real or perceived conflict of
interest in a combined clinical and forensic prac-
tice. For example, a forensic psychologist who
conducts sexual risk assessments should be
aware of such a conflict in the event that a client
requires related treatment services that are also
offered within the group practice.
9
The forensic practitioner who also provides cli-
nical services must be vigilant regarding attempts
by attorneys or other individuals to "back door" a
forensic evaluation. For example, an individual
may present to the clinic seeking clinical services
and an evaluation to clarify a diagnosis and make
treatment recommendations. The psychologist
may then receive a subpoena demanding they tes-
tify as to their findings in a legal context. It is par-
amount for the clinician to clarify and document at
the outset of services the clinical or forensic nature
of the professional relationship.
There are a variety of advantages to combining
clinical and forensic practice. A forensic special-
ist who also provides treatment services may be
perceived as more credible by a judge or jury
than an individual who simply provides 100%
forensic services. The maintenance of a practice
also allows the forensic specialist to have some
increased continuity of cash flow, depending on
the nature and volume of the forensic services
offered. Such a business model also allows the
provider to maintain their clinical skills through
regular application.
There are also disadvantages to a combined
clinical and forensic practice. For example, a dis-
gruntled party in a forensic evaluation may post
negative information or negative comments
about the practitioner on social media or various
online rating platforms. Prospective clients may
see such negative comments about the clinician
and therefore avoid seeking services from that
individual. Likewise, a psychologist’s participa-
tion in a forensic case might easily garner
media attention and interfere with the treatment
provider’s therapeutic relationship with clinical
clients who are exposed to such media.
The issue of scheduling, as well, is significant
when combining a clinical and forensic practice.
The inherent unpredictability of various court
appearances can wreak havoc with a clinical
schedule. The forensic psychologist who also
maintains a clinical practice would do well to
have a discussion with clients at the outset of
treatment services advising them of the potential
for disrupted appointments.
Public Agencies
There are numerous opportunities available
for forensic practice within public agencies
including law enforcement, education, correc-
tions, the military, and courts. While many of
 10 THOMPSON AND FRUMKIN
the above considerations apply to such practice
settings, additional considerations for the psychol-
ogist considering such an affiliation include the
nature of the services to be provided (e.g., are
they varied or confined to one specific area), the
institutional and facility support available (e.g.,
training, equipment, and administrative and peer
support), and the workload. Although a thorough
discussion of various aspects of public agency
forensic practice is beyond the scope of this article,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
a psychologist considering such a practice area is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
advised to talk with colleagues experienced in the
particular agency under consideration so as to get
a sense of the specific advantages and disadvan-
tages of that workplace.
Clearly, the decision as to which practice
model to adopt is complex. The forensic practi-
tioner should consider his or her own strengths
and weaknesses, the scope of services to be pro-
vided, and one’s tolerance for the stressors asso-
ciated with the challenges of the various models
before making a decision.
Business Practices
Although many of the same business practices
required for clinical practice are necessary for a
forensic practice, there are some important differ-
ences to be considered by the clinician when
establishing a forensic practice.
Office Space
If one has primarily a criminal forensic prac-
tice, many of the individuals evaluated are seen
in a correctional setting. A practitioner may
need office space to see individuals who are not
in custody, to meet with a defendant’s family
members, or to meet with attorneys. Apart from
space to do paperwork (e.g., score and interpret
test data, preparation of forensic reports), how-
ever, it is unlikely that one will need office
space for as much time as a traditional therapist
who sees multiple clients a day throughout the
week for assessment or treatment. Alternatively,
the forensic psychologist who is primarily
involved in civil cases will be evaluating most
of the people in an office setting. Regardless of
the nature of the forensic practice, the psycholo-
gist must adequately address the needs for access
to current technology. Many court systems have
transitioned to the electronic filing of documents,
and most law offices are set up to communicate
electronically, including the transfer of docu-
ments. The recent SARs-COV-2 pandemic illus-
trated the need for forensic practitioners to be
nimble and flexible, as many court systems con-
verted to the use of virtual appearances, includ-
ing the use of technology for remote forensic
psychological evaluations under some circum-
stances. The forensic practitioner must possess
the proper technology to work under these condi-
tions, and must be proficient in its application.
Billing and Payment
Depending upon the specific referral source
(e.g., a government agency vs. a private attor-
ney), many forensic practitioners require an
up-front retainer against which billing is applied
as the work on a case progresses. This model
requires a reasonable estimate of the work vol-
ume in a given case, as well as clear and well-
documented communication to the funding
source concerning fees and collection policies.
The forensic practitioner is well advised to
defer beginning work on a case until written
acknowledgment from the retaining entity con-
cerning the scope of the work to be done and
the funding details for that work are established.
When avoidable, the authors recommend against
deferring reimbursement for services provided
until a given case has concluded, as litigation is
often a prolonged effort and one could find one-
self waiting for years for reimbursement.
Recent federal legislation known as the No
Surprises Act (2020) requires medical entities,
including mental health providers, to provide
up-front good faith estimates of charges that
are not billed to insurance companies or for
which insurance companies are not expected to
approve. At the time this article was being pre-
pared the extent to which this requirement may
apply to forensic psychological activities has
not been definitively established, although pre-
liminary opinion has suggested that it may not
apply. The forensic practitioner is advised to
work closely with professional organizations to
monitor developments in this area over time.
A thorough working knowledge of insurance
reimbursement processes is also a necessity for
a successful forensic practice. Although forensic
practice is typically not a health service covered
by insurance, the forensic psychologist is likely
to receive pressure from referral sources or per-
sons whom the psychologist is evaluating to
 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE
submit claims to insurers. Understanding insur-
ance billing will assist the psychologist in
explaining why insurance billing for forensic ser-
vices is not an option, and will help prevent reim-
bursement problems or even claims of fraudulent
insurance billing practices.
Marketing
There are numerous ways to successfully pro-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mote a forensic psychology practice, limited only
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
by the forensic practitioner’s creativity. Many
such activities are applicable to clinical activities
as well. Table 3 lists a subset of these activities.
There are, however, some activities that
forensic practitioners should avoid. Pursuing
referrals in response to news reports or other
Table 3
Marketing a Forensic Practice
Activity
Refer cases to other competent professionals.
Understand allegiance bias, and remain professional,
comprehensive, knowledgeable, and objective.
Be professionally active in local, state, and national
psychology activities.
Volunteer one’s expertise in the psychologist’s
professional and personal communities.
Provide discounted or pro bono services.
Introduce yourself and your practice to attorneys and
judges.
Contribute to the forensic psychology literature.
Develop and maintain a strong professional website.
Consider producing blogs that provide relevant and
useful information in your area of expertise.
Be culturally competent.
11
public information, for example, is not advisable.
Psychologists who contact attorneys and offer
their services in high-profile cases increase the
risk that they will be perceived as biased, and
if the evaluation or other work product produced
by the psychologist turns out to be not helpful to
the case the attorney may feel misled. Likewise,
offering public comments about cases in which
the psychologist is or was involved is ill-advised.
Such comments may negatively affect the current
case or future appeal even if they are confined
to testimony by the psychologist that is already
a matter of public record, and statements made
by a psychologist about a case may easily be
taken out of context or misunderstood by the
public. Public statements about a case may
also contribute to a perception that the
Comments
When contacted about services that are outside of your specialty area,
a referral to a competent colleague encourages reciprocation and
helps instill confidence in attorneys who trust you to stay within
your areas of expertise.
Be sensitive to pressure to produce material helpful to the referring
attorney. Good attorneys are seeking thorough and objective work
that will stand up under cross-examination.
In addition to formal psychology organizations such as state
associations and APA divisions, join service clubs and other
organizations that provide opportunities for the psychologist to
interact with potential referral sources and share their expertise.
Volunteer to serve as a consultant to local first responders, the local
newspaper, radio stations, or the school district.
Seek enrollment on lists for court-appointed evaluations. Provide
discounted services for legal aid organizations. Consider donating
a free evaluation periodically to a local court system. This allows
others to see evidence of your skill, and it builds goodwill with
referral sources.
While a letter and curriculum vitae may be a good initial contact,
in-person meetings are often better. Be respectful of time
constraints, and talk with their clerks or office staff in advance so as
not to inconvenience anyone.
Publish scholarly material in peer-reviewed articles, chapters, or
books in both psychological and legal arenas. Contribute short
articles in local, state, or regional legal organizations’ newsletters
or bulletins or in APA division newsletters.
Utilize proper metadata that direct searches to your website for the
specialized services that you offer.
While this service can be useful to others and an effective way to
demonstrate your expertise, know that anything that you publish
will be available to be used in cross-examination.
Familiarize yourself with APA’s Cultural Guidelines (American
Psychological Association, 2017b), and be sensitive to the
importance of culturally appropriate evaluations and consultation.
Consider working with diverse clinicians or providing services in
languages other than English if you are competent to do so.
 12 THOMPSON AND FRUMKIN
psychologist is in some way biased. Likewise,
offering media opinions about the psychological
characteristics of a newsworthy figure whom the
psychologist has not evaluated invites both law-
suits and ethics complaints.
Summary
In this article, we have identified and discussed
a variety of factors involved in establishing a suc-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cessful forensic practice. Establishing forensic
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
competence, developing a strong grasp of the dif-
ferences between a traditional clinical practice
and working in a forensic context, recognizing
and avoiding pitfalls, and making informed busi-
ness decisions all contribute to a successful and
satisfying forensic practice.
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Guide-
lines for child custody evaluations in family law pro-
ceedings. American Psychologist, 65(9), 863–867.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021250
American Psychological Association. (2013). Spe-
cialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 68(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10
.1037/a0029889
American Psychological Association. (2017a). Ethical
principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017
.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2017b). Multi-
cultural guidelines: An ecological approach to con-
text, identity, and intersectionality. https://www.apa
.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf
Denny, R., & Sullivan, J. (2008). Constitutional,
judicial, and practice foundations of criminal foren-
sic neuropsychology. In R. Denny, & J. Sullivan
(Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal
forensic setting (pp. 1–29). Guilford Press.
Drogin, E., & Barrett, C. (2013). Trial consultation. In
R. Otto (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11.
Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 205–307).
John Wiley & Sons.
Faust, D. (2012). Coping with psychiatric and psycho-
logical testimony (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Florida Statutes, Chapter 64B19-18.007(1).
Gottlieb, M., & Younggren, J. (2019). Addressing
potential role conflicts in military courts-martial.
In C. Stein, & J. Younggren (Eds.), Forensic psy-
chology in military courts-martial (pp. 91–102).
American Psychological Association.
Greenberg, S. & Shuman, D. (1997). Irreconcilable
conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Pro-
fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1),
50–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.1.50
Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental
health assessment. Springer.
Heltzel, T. (2007). Compatibility of therapeutic and
forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 38(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0735-7028.38.2.122
Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637. (1962).
Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., Slobogin, C., Otto,
R., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. (2018). Psychologi-
cal evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental
health and legal professionals (4th ed.). Guilford
Press.
No Surprises Act, Pub. L. 116-260. (2020).
Received November 28, 2021
Revision received November 23, 2022
Accepted November 25, 2022 ▪