BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 1
Benchmark Ethical Vignette
Jasmine Jernigan
Professor: Dr. Elizabeth ParrComeaux
COUC 501: Ethical and Legal Issues in Counseling
June 8, 2025
BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 2
Abstract
This paper applies the first four steps of the Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical
Decision-Making to a counseling vignette in which Marie, an African American client,
wonders whether I, a White female therapist, can genuinely understand her experience.
By identifying the ethical dilemma, applying the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics and Maryland
regulations, weighing relevant moral principles, consulting current scholarship, and
generating culturally responsive actions, the discussion demonstrates how cultural
humility and principled reasoning guide sound clinical decisions.
BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 3
Introduction
Questions of cultural “fit” commonly arise when the therapist and client differ in
salient identity markers. In the vignette under review, Marie arrives feeling
overwhelmed, isolated, and “down” about her schooling experience. Early in the session,
she asks whether a White therapist can genuinely be the best person to help an African
American woman. My professional task is to respond in a manner that honors her
autonomy, safeguards against potential cultural harm, and upholds ethical integrity. The
following narrative walks through the first four steps of the ACA decision-making model
identifying the problem, consulting the code of ethics, considering relevant statutes, and
generating possible courses of action to craft a plan of care that is both ethically and
clinically sound.
Identify the Problem
Marie presents with three main issues, which are sadness, academic pressure,
and feeling disconnected from others. Her question, “Can you really understand what
I’m going through?” Indicates her uncertainty about my cultural competence and
suggests potential difficulties in the therapeutic relationship. The dilemma, therefore, is
primarily ethical, centering on multicultural competence and the risk of micro aggressive
harm, and clinical because alliance quality is a robust predictor of outcome. No
mandated reporting issues or immediate legal violations are apparent, yet professional
regulations require that I practice only within the boundaries of competence and that I
avoid causing harm to clients.
Application of the ACA Code of Ethics (2014)
Three ACA standards are most salient. A.1.a (Primary Responsibility) requires
counselors to “respect the dignity and promote the welfare of clients,” making client
safety paramount. B.1.d (Explanation of Limitations) obliges counselors to inform clients
of confidentiality limits at the outset; the present client was notified that parents could
BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 4
be contacted in a safety crisis. B.2.a (Serious and Foreseeable Harm and Legal
Requirements) permits disclosure of confidential information to prevent serious,
foreseeable harm, authorizing parent notification if the counselor’s risk assessment
indicates imminent risk (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014).
Applicable State and Federal Law
Several provisions of the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics give explicit guidance for this
situation. Standard A.2.c states that counselors must demonstrate cultural sensitivity
and adapt interventions to the client’s cultural context (ACA, 2014). Standard C.2.a
reminds counselors to monitor the limits of their competence and to pursue supervision
or referral whenever those limits could compromise client welfare. Standard A.4.b warns
against the imposition of personal values that might jeopardize objectivity or
effectiveness. Taken together, these provisions oblige me to engage in an open
conversation with Marie about her cultural concerns, to seek multicultural supervision,
and to remain willing to arrange a referral if that route ultimately serves her best
interests.
Maryland Codes and Federal Law
Maryland’s regulatory language echoes the ACA’s mandates. COMAR 10.58.03.05
C requires counselors to practice solely within the bounds of their competence and to
obtain additional education or supervision when gaps emerge (Maryland Department of
Health, 2024). COMAR 10.58.03.06 A(6) explicitly includes multicultural knowledge and
skill as a component of ethical practice. The Civil Rights Act includes Title VI, which
prohibits race-based discrimination in all programs that receive federal funding, thus
requiring full respect for Marie's racial identity during treatment. The Privacy Rule of
HIPAA requires me to protect Marie's protected health information throughout the
process of seeking consultation or arranging a referral.
BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 5
Nature and Dimensions of the Dilemma
Among the ACA’s moral principles, autonomy, and non-maleficence assume first
priority. Marie has the right to choose a therapist she trusts, and I have an obligation to
protect her from harm that could arise through cultural misunderstanding. Fidelity and
veracity are also relevant because honest disclosure of my competencies and limitations
is essential for building trust. Contemporary research reinforces these priorities.
Thompson and Smith (2024) found that early-session cultural humility significantly
strengthens the therapeutic alliance with thoracically diverse clients. Hook et al. (2013)
demonstrated that humility, more than demographic matching alone, predicts positive
counseling outcomes. (Samuel & Simmons, 2025) reported that clients are more willing
to share racial trauma narratives when therapists explicitly invite those conversations.
Schmalbach et al. (2022) observed that demographic matching can offer modest benefits
but only when paired with demonstrable multicultural competence.
Because consultation is a cornerstone of ethical decision-making, I would present
the case to two seasoned multicultural supervisors Dr. Karen Brown and Ms. Alicia
Harper both of whom work under the ACA code. I would also rely on resources from the
Maryland Counseling Association and the Association for Multicultural Counseling and
Development, organizations that regularly address dilemmas of cultural competence.’
Potential Courses of Action
A responsible response begins with a culturally centered dialogue in the next
session. I will validate Marie’s concern and invite her to describe the elements that
would make counseling feel culturally safe. By laying out my ongoing multicultural
training and collaboratively crafting expectations for the work, I respect her autonomy
and align with the alliance-building strategies described by Thompson and Smith (2024).
Concurrently, I will enter weekly multicultural supervision with Dr. Brown to
examine blind spots and refine interventions, an approach supported by Hook et al.
(2013), who found that reflective practice helps reduce micro-aggressions and
BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 6
strengthens alliance quality. I will also offer Marie a genuine choice regarding referral or
co-therapy. If she prefers to work with an African American clinician, I will facilitate that
transition or arrange joint sessions to ease continuity. Research suggests that such
clientdirected referrals can lower early attrition rates among women of color
(Schmalbach et al., 2022).
Should Marie decide to remain in treatment with me, we will integrate
liberationbased and validation-focused interventions that explicitly name and process
systemic racism when relevant. (Samuel & Simmons, 2025) document the therapeutic
value of directly addressing racial trauma in a collaborative, culturally informed manner.
Throughout this process, I will document the decision-making steps, supervision input,
client preferences, and resulting treatment plan, thereby meeting COMAR record-
keeping standards and HIPAA privacy requirements. In combining transparent dialogue,
ongoing supervision, flexible referral options, and culturally responsive techniques, I
uphold
Marie’s voice while honoring my ethical obligations.
Conclusion
The vignette demonstrates how cultural differences can trigger a client’s doubt
about therapeutic suitability. By applying the ACA Code of Ethics, Maryland regulations,
empirical literature, and core moral principles, I arrive at a plan grounded in cultural
humility and client autonomy. Ethical practice in such cases depends less on
demographic matching alone than on a consistent, reflective commitment to
competence, non-maleficence, and transparent collaboration. Implementing the
response outlined above positions me to provide or to help Marie obtain care that is
both clinically effective and culturally affirming.
BENCHMARK ETHICAL VIGNETTE PAPER 7
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Author.
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural
humility: measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of counseling
psychology, 60(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595
Maryland Department of Health. (2024). Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
10.58.03: Code of ethics. https://health.maryland.gov
Samuel, N. K. S., & Simonds, L. M. (2025). Disclosing racial trauma in psychological
therapy: Exploring the experiences of racially minoritised people in the UK.
Psychology and psychotherapy, 10.1111/papt.12592. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12592
Schmalbach, B., Paunović, V., & Winter, D. (2022). Gender, race/ethnicity, and patient–
therapist matching in psychodynamic therapy. Psychotherapy, 59(3), 345–
360. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000388
Thompson, J. R., & Smith, L. (2024). Therapist cultural humility in early psychotherapy
with ethnoracially diverse clients. Psychotherapy Research, 34(1), 45–
59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2025.2481268
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
