By: N’Dorah Z. Walker, LCSW-C 

Act One: Juggling Boundaries 

Maria, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), has been close friends with Jordan for over 15 years. The two met while working at a local non-profit. Jordan’s role when the two  initially met was as a paraprofessional. Maria became a mentor to Jordan and their friendship gradually progressed. They have remained personally connected - celebrating  holidays together, vacationing together, sharing personal struggles, and maintaining  frequent social contact. 

Jordan appreciated Maria’s love for her profession and felt inspired to further her own education. She earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in social work, finishing her master’s about five years ago. She has worked in several social service settings since earning her master’s degree. 

Jordan recently accepted a clinical position that requires weekly supervision from an LCSW to obtain hours toward independent licensure. She initially met with a colleague in her office yet didn’t feel the colleague was effective. During a group outing with friends, Jordan complains to the group explaining she was worried the work with her current clinical supervisor wouldn’t adequately prepare her for clinical practice. Jordan voiced her wish that Maria could be her clinical supervisor. Maria eagerly volunteers to provide clinical supervision to Jordan, she believes their strong communication and trust will support an effective supervisory relationship. 

As supervision progresses, issues quickly begin to emerge. During supervision sessions, Jordan sometimes references personal situations that Maria is familiar with through their friendship. At other times, discussions begin as professional supervision yet veer into more informal conversation that resembles their personal interactions outside of work. Jordan will also reference clients and/or clinical issues during social gatherings. Maria also notices that she sometimes hesitates to offer more critical feedback because she worries about how it may affect their friendship. There’s also concern about consistency. Maria and Jordan may both be tardy or absent for supervision yet don’t accurately document their time. 

In addition, Jordan recently shared a challenging situation involving a clinical decision with a client. It is evident that the situation and Jordan’s interventions require closer review and possible corrective action. Maria finds herself challenged in her responsibilities as a supervisor and hesitates to fully explore the clinical issues in the case and provide adequate supervision. She recognizes the struggles she’s having in this supervisory relationship yet doesn’t know how to resolve. She becomes less responsive to Jordan, cancelling supervision sessions or not returning calls. In time, she explains to Jordan that she needs a break from supervision responsibilities. Maria is now considering how to proceed in a way that is thoughtful, ethical, and supportive of both professional integrity and the well-being of Jordan and the clients she serves. 

Act Two: Discussion Questions 

1. According to the NASW Code of Ethics, is it ever appropriate to provide clinical supervision to a close friend? No, due to the inherent conflicts of interest.  

2. What ethical considerations might arise when personal and professional relationships intersect in a supervisory context? 

 

The NASW Code of Ethics states the following about: 

Responsibility to Clients 

•  1.01: The primary responsibility is to promote client well-being.  

Maria’s hesitation to address Jordan’s ethical errors directly puts clients at risk; which is a serious ethical concern.  

 

Dual relationships and conflicts of interest 

•  1.06 (a): Social workers should avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgement. The client’s best interests are primary.  

•  1.06(b): Social workers should not take unfair advantage of any professional relationships.  

Maria’s reluctance to provide critical feedback demonstrates this impairment. 

 

Boundary confusion, Privacy and Confidentiality 

•   1.06(c): Social workers must set clear boundaries when dual relationships exist and take steps to protect all parties. 

•  1.07(a)(i): Protecting client confidentiality is essential; mandates that social workers reform from discussing confidential information in public or semi-public areas. 

Jordan discussing clients during social gatherings represents a potential breach of confidentiality and blurred professional boundaries. 

 

Competence in supervision 

•  1.04(a)(b): Supervisors must provide appropriate and competent supervision and ensure clear, appropriate boundaries.  

•  3.01(a)(b)(c): Social workers should provide services within their competence. Social workers in supervisory or consultative roles are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. Prohibits social workers who provide supervision or consultation from engaging in dual relationships with supervisees. 

Maria’s inconsistency, avoidance, and failure to address clinical concerns suggest inadequate supervision. 

 

Education and Training 

•  3.02(a)(b): Social workers must provide instruction only within their areas of knowledge and competence. Social workers must evaluate students’/supervisee’s performance in a manner that is fair and respectful. 

 

Documentation and integrity 

•  4.04: Social workers should not participate in dishonesty, fraud, or deception.  

•  3.04(a): Accurate documentation is required.  

Under Maryland regulations (COMAR): 

•  Supervisors are required to maintain objectivity and professional boundaries and avoid relationships that impair judgment (see COMAR 10.42.08 – Supervision Requirements). 

•  Accurate recording of supervision hours  

•  Supervision frequency 

•  (Truthful) representation of clinical supervision 

(COMAR 10.42.08.07)  

Falsifying or inaccurately reporting supervision hours could constitute professional misconduct. 

3. In situations where boundaries may become less clear, what factors should guide Maria’s decision-making? 

Maria should rely on: 

Ethical standards: NASW Code of Ethics 1.06 (Conflicts of Interest, including 1.06b ability to remain objective); NASW Code of Ethics 2.05 (consultation); NASW Code of Ethics 1.01 (Commitment to Clients, impact on client welfare) COMAR 10.42.08: requires structured, documented supervision; professional oversight; ethical responsibility for supervisee’s clinical work; decision-making considerations.

When these cannot be met, the ethical course is to decline or terminate the supervisory role. 

4. How might a supervisor balance responsibility to professional standards while also maintaining respect and care for the individuals involved? 

Remember the guiding framework of the NASW Code of Ethics. Maintaining appropriate boundaries is important. The supervisor’s role is also to teach and model ethical behavior. Maria’s behavior was a poor example for Jordan.  

Maria must balance: 

Professional obligations 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 1.01: Clients come first  

•  NASW Code of Ethics 3.01(a)(b)(c)(d): Supervisors must ensure effective, respectful supervision with appropriate boundaries. Supervisors must evaluate supervisees in a manner that is fair and respectful.  

•  NASW Code of Ethics 1.16(a): Social workers should refer clients (also supervisees) to other appropriate professions when necessary.  

 

Respect and care 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 2.01: Respect for colleagues  

 

She can ethically: 

•  Be honest about her limitations  

•  Transition Jordan to another supervisor  

•  Maintain the friendship with clearer boundaries  

 

5. What steps should Maria consider now to address the situation? 

 

Terminate supervision appropriately 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 1.17: Terminate services when no longer effective or in the client’s best interest  

Provide: Clear communication; reasonable notice; referral to another LCSW  

 

Address client-related risks 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 1.01: Ensure client welfare through proper oversight  

•  NASW Code of Ethics 2.05: Consult with another qualified professional if needed  

 

Correct documentation 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 3.04(a): Ensure documentation is accurate  

•  NASW Code of Ethics 4.04: Avoid misrepresentation  

•  Follow COMAR 10.42.08 documentation requirements  

 

Re-establish boundaries 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 1.06(c): Set clear, appropriate boundaries moving forward  

 

Reflect and prevent recurrence 

•  NASW Code of Ethics 4.01(b): Engage in ongoing self-reflection and professional development 

 

A Broader Lesson 

This case highlights a common challenge in helping professions: the tension between personal connection and professional responsibility. 

The guidance from the National Association of Social Workers and the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners is clear – when boundaries become blurred and objectivity is compromised, professionals must act decisively. 

In the end, ethical practice is not just about following rules. It is about ensuring that trust – the trust placed in social workers by clients, colleagues, and communities – is honored and protected. 

References 

•  National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. 

•  Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners. 

Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 10.42.08 – Supervision Requirements 

(Includes standards for supervision structure, documentation, and supervisor responsibility)