We all know about Dr. Phil, and his most recent attempt to "help" Britney Spears. People wonder if he violated an ethical rule or licensing provision by revealing what he did about his visit to Cedars-Sinai to see Ms. Spears. This NY Times article concludes that he appears to have miraculously avoided violating any of the provisions that would normally apply. Not being licensed as a therapist turns out to be good for Dr. Phil.
It’s wonderfully ironic that none of the normal rules apply to Dr. Phil. He doesn’t need rules, but then neither do we. For example, do we need ‘rules’ to conclude that what he did was wrong? Do we need to spend much time figuring out why it was wrong? Isn’t it obvious that he put his own media-mongering interests above those of the person he claims he was trying to help? Of course, this recent publicity snafu won’t keep him from plying his trade. When people are confused and desperate for help they’ll listen to pretty much anybody. Thank God our ever-vigilant media helps counterbalance this unfortunate tendency.
P.S. If you're a practicing lawyer, check out this Law Practice Assessment . After answering a few questions, you'll get detailed recommendations for improving five key areas of your practice.
