Can Therapists Ask Clients for Reviews? What the Ethics Codes Say

Can Therapists Ask Clients for Reviews? What the APA, ACA, NASW and AAMFT Codes Say Generally, no — most professional ethics codes for therapists, counselors and social workers treat soliciting a testimonial or review from a current client as a risk to the therapeutic relationship, and several extend that caution to former clients too. The concern isn't the review itself; it's that a client's ability to freely decline a request from their own therapist is compromised by the relationship, which is why this is an ethics question and not just a marketing one. This is the central question behind everything else a mental health practice does with its online reputation, so it's worth working through what each code actually says before deciding on a policy. Building review monitoring built around your ethics code — rather than around a generic review-growth playbook — starts here. Why this question comes up so often Therapists ask this question more than almost any other small-business owner asks the equivalent, and it's not because they're less entrepreneurial than a dentist or a contractor — it's because the answer genuinely isn't "yes, go ahead" the way it is almost everywhere else. A new practice owner coming from a non-clinical business background, or simply used to the marketing advice aimed at small businesses generally, reasonably expects that happy clients are a resource to tap the same way a happy restaurant customer is. The ethics codes below are the reason that expectation doesn't transfer, and understanding why — rather than just being told "don't" — makes it easier to explain the policy to staff and to clients who ask. What the APA Ethics Code (5.05) says The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principle 5.05, on testimonials, addresses psychologists soliciting testimonials from current therapy clients specifically, on the reasoning that current clients are particularly vulnerable to undue influence given the nature of the relationship. The principle is narrower than a blanket ban on all reviews from anyone who has ever been a client, but it's commonly read by ethics consultants as a strong caution against any practice-initiated request to a current client, and a softer caution that fades somewhat with time and distance for former clients. Confirm the current wording and any interpretive guidance from the APA Ethics Committee before relying on this for a specific practice's policy . What the ACA Code of Ethics says (verify section number) The American Counseling Association's Code of Ethics addresses solicitation of testimonials in a section commonly cited as either C.3.b or A.3.b, depending on the source and the edition referenced — the section numbering has shifted across revisions of the code, so don't treat either citation as settled without checking the current, published version directly . The substance across editions has consistently discouraged counselors from soliciting testimonials from current clients given the risk of coercion, and from using testimonials from former clients who may still be vulnerable to the counselor's influence. NASW and AAMFT rules on soliciting testimonials The National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics, in the provision commonly cited as 4.07(b), addresses solicitation of testimonials from clients who, because of their individual circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence . The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy's Code of Ethics, in the provision commonly cited as 3.8, similarly restricts the use of testimonials from clients . Both read in the same direction as the APA and ACA provisions above: the client's capacity to say no isn't reliable enough to treat a review request like an ordinary ask. NBCC and state licensing board rules The National Board for Certified Counselors maintains its own code of ethics with advertising and solicitation provisions that board-certified counselors are bound by in addition to any state licensing requirements . State licensing boards can and sometimes do impose stricter rules on top of whatever a national association's code says, and a board's interpretation of its own state's statute is what actually governs a licensee's conduct in that state — a national code is a floor, not a ceiling, and it's not a substitute for checking the specific board that licenses a given clinician. What this means for your practice Taken together, these codes point toward the same practical conclusion: don't send review requests to clients, current or recently discharged, no matter how satisfied they seem. This is different from most other service businesses, where review request text templates sent to every customer are standard practice and, outside specific no-solicitation platforms like Yelp, generally fine. For a therapy practice, the review-generation playbook that works for a dentist or a contractor doesn't transfer. What does still work: a passive, accurate presence — a complete Google Business Profile, a well-written Psychology Today profile, and a calm, consistent reply to whatever reviews arrive on their own, following the discipline covered in how therapists should respond to online reviews. A written internal policy — see therapist review policy: a template for your website and profiles — gives every staff member the same answer when a client asks, unprompted, whether they can leave a review, and keeps the practice from drifting into solicitation by accident through a well-meaning front-desk script. Does the passage of time change anything for former clients? Several of the codes discussed above distinguish, at least in spirit, between a current client and someone discharged years ago, on the reasoning that the risk of undue influence fades as the relationship and its power imbalance recede. That reasoning doesn't translate into a specific, universal waiting period — no code reviewed here sets a bright-line number of months or years after which solicitation becomes clearly acceptable . A practice that wants to rely on "enough time has passed" as part of its reasoning should treat that as a judgment call informed by the specific client's circumstances and the practice's own risk tolerance, not as a fixed rule, and should still avoid any request that could read as expecting reciprocity for past care. What counts as solicitation versus simply being reviewable It's worth being precise about where the line sits, because "don't solicit reviews" doesn't mean "don't have an online presence that can be reviewed." Maintaining a Google Business Profile, a Psychology Today listing, or a profile on an insurance marketplace like Headway or Alma doesn't solicit anything — it simply makes the practice findable and, incidentally, reviewable by anyone who chooses to leave feedback unprompted. What crosses into solicitation is any direct or indirect request: a card handed to clients asking them to review the practice, a follow-up email after discharge framed around leaving a review, a front-desk script that mentions reviews during a session wrap-up, or an automated review request text message sent the way a dentist or a contractor might send one. The absence of a request is the entire distinction. What about reviews that arrive completely unprompted? Nothing in any of the codes discussed above restricts what a client does on their own — a client is free to leave a review, positive or negative, without the practice having said a word about it. The ethics concern is specifically about the practice initiating or incentivizing the request, not about the practice's mere existence as something that can be reviewed. A practice that receives an unsolicited, glowing review hasn't done anything wrong by having a Google Business Profile that made that review possible; it would only cross a line by thanking the client in a way that confirms the relationship publicly, which is covered in how therapists should respond to online reviews, or by resharing the review in a way that identifies the client. What a state licensing board can add on top A national association's code — APA, ACA, NASW, AAMFT, NBCC — governs membership in that association and, for licensed clinicians, often informs how a state board interprets its own statute, but the board's own rules are what actually create legal consequences for a license. Some state boards have issued their own guidance or disciplinary decisions specifically addressing client testimonials and social media conduct that go further than the relevant national code , and a clinician licensed in more than one state may be bound by more than one board's interpretation at once. Checking the specific board for every state where a clinician holds a license is the only way to know the actual floor for that clinician's conduct. How this compares to other licensed professions that do solicit reviews It's a reasonable question why a dentist, a physical therapist, or a chiropractor — all of whom also hold a client's trust and often also bill insurance — can generally ask for reviews while a mental health clinician generally can't. The honest answer is that the ethics codes governing those professions haven't adopted the same testimonial-specific restrictions that the APA, ACA, NASW and AAMFT codes have, not that the underlying power dynamic is fundamentally different. A mental health practice shouldn't take comfort in what's permitted in an adjacent field; the governing code is the one that applies to the specific license in question. Frequently asked questions Can a practice thank a client, in person, for leaving an unsolicited review? A private, in-session acknowledgment is a different question from the public solicitation issue addressed above, and most of the codes discussed here focus on solicitation and public testimonial use rather than private conversation. Even so, dwelling on it risks shifting the focus of a session toward the practice's marketing rather than the client's care, which is its own, separate clinical concern worth being mindful of regardless of what any specific ethics provision says. Can a supervisor or practice owner ask on behalf of clinicians they supervise? No — the concern is about the client's relationship to whoever is asking, and a supervisor or owner who has any role in the client's care, scheduling, or billing carries the same relational weight as the treating clinician for this purpose. Delegating the request to someone else at the practice doesn't resolve the underlying issue. What if a client offers to leave a review without being asked? That's outside the scope of what these codes restrict — the concern is the practice initiating the request, not a client's own unprompted offer. Even so, it's worth not responding to the offer in a way that could read as encouragement or incentive, and the practice still shouldn't say anything in reply that confirms the relationship once the review is posted, covered in how therapists should respond to online reviews. Do these restrictions apply to testimonials used in marketing materials too, not just online reviews? Yes — the APA, ACA, NASW and AAMFT provisions discussed above generally address testimonials as a category, which covers a quote used on a website or in a brochure just as much as a star rating on Google. A practice shouldn't treat "testimonial" and "online review" as different risk categories; the same reasoning about undue influence and client vulnerability applies to both . None of this is legal or ethics advice; check your current code and your state licensing board before adopting a policy, and consult a licensed ethics consultant for anything specific to your practice. Every review, mention and AI answer in one place → Try Tailwind free. Tailwind runs $5 a month per tool, or $50 a month for the Full plan covering everything, with the first month free and no card required to start.