What is the Tarasoff duty to warn or protect?

• A. Counselors have no duty to warn
• B. Counselors may have a duty to warn identifiable potential victims or take steps to protect them when a client poses a credible risk of serious harm
• C. Duty to talk to supervisor only
• D. Duty to disclose to police but not victims

Answer: (B)

The key idea being tested is the duty mental health professionals have to protect potential victims when a client poses a credible threat of serious harm. Tarasoff established that confidentiality is not absolute—the therapist may be required to take protective actions if a threat is credible and specific enough to identify who might be harmed.

Why this answer fits: It frames the obligation as a possible duty to act to prevent harm, either by warning an identifiable potential victim or by taking steps to protect them. The emphasis on a credible risk of serious harm captures the standard that triggers the protective exception to confidentiality. In practice, this means actions such as directly warning the potential victim or informing authorities or taking other safety measures, depending on the situation and jurisdiction.

Why the other options don’t fit: There is indeed a duty to warn or protect, so saying there is no duty is incorrect. Viewing supervision as the sole obligation misses the protective action that Tarasoff requires. Limiting disclosure to police but not to potential victims is incomplete because the protective mandate can involve warning the victim as well, not just police involvement, and the core obligation is to take steps to protect the identified person from harm.