Clinical or Forensic? Why the Psychologist's Role Matters

The difference matters more than you might think.

One of the things I've noticed in my work with attorneys is that they ask good questions. A lot of them.

And I welcome that.

Forensic psychology sits at the intersection of two professions—psychology and law—that don't always speak the same language. Attorneys understand the legal questions they're trying to answer. Psychologists understand human behavior, psychological assessment, diagnosis, and the limits of what our science can tell us. When we work together, part of the job is making sure we're actually answering the same question.

One issue that comes up more often than you might expect is the difference between a psychologist working in a clinical role and one working in a forensic role.

Sometimes the question sounds like this:

My client already has a psychologist. Can't I just use them?

Sometimes it's:

Can the treating therapist give an opinion about this?

Or simply:

Do I need a forensic evaluation?

The answer, as is often the case in psychology and law, is: it depends.

But the distinction matters.

Same Profession. Different Job.

A psychologist may work in both clinical and forensic settings. I do.

But when I am providing psychotherapy, my role is fundamentally different from the role I occupy when conducting a forensic evaluation.

In clinical practice, my responsibility is generally centered on the patient and the therapeutic process. I'm working to understand what the person is experiencing and to help improve psychological functioning and well-being.

In forensic work, I'm being asked to answer a question.

And that question matters enormously.

The purpose of the evaluation might be to understand psychological functioning as it relates to a particular legal issue. My job is to gather the relevant information, evaluate it objectively, and determine what conclusions the available evidence reasonably supports.

Sometimes the answer is straightforward.

Sometimes it isn't.

And sometimes the most responsible answer a forensic psychologist can give is:

The available information doesn't allow me to reach that conclusion.

That's part of the job, too.

The Person Who Hires the Expert Doesn't Get to Choose the Answer

This is one of the most important principles in forensic work.

An attorney may retain me. That doesn't make me the attorney's advocate.

My responsibility is to the integrity of the evaluation and the opinions I provide.

That means reviewing information carefully, considering alternative explanations, recognizing the limitations of the available data, and remaining alert to my own potential biases.

Ideally, the conclusions I reach are useful to the attorney who retained me.

But usefulness and agreement aren't always the same thing.

A credible forensic opinion has to be able to withstand scrutiny regardless of which side retained the evaluator.

A Forensic Evaluation Usually Looks Beyond the Interview

Another difference involves where the information comes from.

In psychotherapy, much of the work naturally centers on what the patient tells me and what emerges within the therapeutic relationship.

A forensic evaluation may require me to cast a considerably wider net.

Depending on the question I'm being asked, that might include psychological testing, medical and mental health records, legal documents, prior evaluations, collateral information, and other relevant sources.

Why?

Because context matters.

People involved in litigation are operating within circumstances that can carry significant personal, financial, occupational, or legal consequences. A forensic psychologist has to consider those circumstances when evaluating the information available.

No single test, interview, document, or person's account should automatically become the whole story.

And Then There's Confidentiality

This is another area where I find clarification is often helpful.

A person walking into psychotherapy generally has an expectation of confidentiality, within the legal and ethical limits that apply.

Someone participating in a forensic evaluation is entering a very different kind of professional relationship.

The evaluation is being conducted for a particular purpose, and information obtained during that process may ultimately be communicated to an attorney, court, agency, or other authorized party.

That's why, at the beginning of a forensic evaluation, I want to make sure the assignment is clear:

Who requested the evaluation?

What question am I being asked to answer?

Who will receive my findings?

And what are the limits of confidentiality?

Those aren't administrative details. They're fundamental to the process.

So, Can You Just Ask the Treating Psychologist?

Sometimes a treating psychologist has information that is highly relevant to a legal matter.

But there's an important distinction between having useful clinical information and conducting an independent forensic evaluation designed to answer a specific legal question.

A treating psychologist knows the patient through the lens of treatment. A forensic evaluator approaches the matter with a different purpose, methodology, and set of professional responsibilities.

Trying to combine those roles can sometimes create problems involving objectivity, confidentiality, boundaries, and conflicting obligations.

Which brings me back to one of those questions attorneys ask me:

Do I need a forensic psychologist?

Maybe.

But I think the better first question is:

What exactly am I asking the psychologist to do?

Once that's clear, it becomes much easier to determine who should be doing it.

The Bottom Line

Clinical and forensic psychology aren't necessarily practiced by different psychologists. They're different roles.

And when psychology enters the legal arena, being clear about the psychologist's role—from the beginning—can prevent a lot of confusion later.

For attorneys, that means thinking carefully about the question you need answered before deciding who is best positioned to answer it.

And if you're not sure?

That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask a forensic psychologist.

About Dr. Pizzi

Gregg A. Pizzi, Psy.D. is a psychologist licensed in Florida and Michigan, a board-certified sex therapist, and a consulting forensic examiner. His work spans clinical and forensic psychology, bringing more than two decades of experience in psychological assessment and treatment to his forensic evaluation, consultation, and expert services.

Have a Question About a Case?

If you're an attorney considering whether psychological consultation or a forensic evaluation may be appropriate for a matter, you're welcome to contact me. Sometimes a brief conversation is enough to clarify the question and determine the appropriate next step.

Request a Consultation →