A. The confidential relationship between a client and a licensee, including a temporary licensee, is the same as between an attorney and a client. Unless a client waives this privilege in writing or in court testimony, a licensee shall not voluntarily or involuntarily divulge information that is received by reason of the confidential nature of the behavioral health professional-client relationship.
B. A licensee shall divulge to the board information the board requires in connection with any investigation, public hearing or other proceeding.
C. The behavioral health professional-client privilege does not extend to cases in which the behavioral health professional has a duty to:
1. Inform victims and appropriate authorities that a client's condition indicates a clear and imminent danger to the client or others pursuant to this chapter.
2. Report information as required by law.
D. A client's legal guardian may make treatment decisions on behalf of the client, except that the client receiving services is the decision maker for issues:
1. That directly affect the client's physical or emotional safety, such as sexual or other exploitative relationships.
2. That the guardian agrees to specifically reserve to the client.
3. Where the right to seek behavioral health services without parental or guardian consent is established by state or federal law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
· cites it 8× “503 (privilege extends to physicians and psychotherapists), with Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-3283 (1992) (privilege covers "behavioral health professional[s]"); Tex.”
In Re: Mh2019-004895, 468 P.3d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 14× “, asserting that A.R.S. § 32-3283 prohibited M.S. from testifying without Appellant’s consent.”
P.M. v. Gould, 136 P.3d 223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 32-3283 (Supp.2005). On occasion, however, the rights of a victim have been forced to yield to the duties of the State in prosecuting wrongdoers and the rights of the criminal defendant to defend against such prosecutions.”
Barnes v. Outlaw, 937 P.2d 323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Appellants point out that the privileges noted above apply only to licensed counselors and therapists, A.R.S. § 32-3283, *406 and argue that Outlaw should not be held to the same standards.”
Gary Abeyta v. Sierra Tucson, Inc. & Heidi Sonntag, 319 P.3d 996 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “¶ 8 Pursuant to AR.S. § 32-3283(A), the confidential relationship between a licensed clinical social worker, such as Sonntag, and a patient “is the same as between an attorney and a client.”
In Re: Mh2023-004502 (Ariz. 2026).
· cites it 20× “argued that the privilege and confidentiality requirements of § 32-3283 applied to M.G. A.R. therefore concluded that M.”
In Re: Mh 2019-004895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “, asserting that A.R.S. § 32-3283 prohibited M.S. from testifying without Appellant’s consent.”
In Re: Mh 2020-004882 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 8× “DISCUSSION ¶12 Appellants argue that the two licensed clinical social workers testified in violation of A.R.S. § 32-3283, which establishes a privilege that, with certain exceptions, precludes a licensee from disclosing information received from a client.”
In Re: Mh 2020-004882 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 7× “DISCUSSION ¶14 Appellants argue that their treatment orders must be vacated because the State did not comply with the statutory requirements of A.”
In Re Mh2018-004459 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “had a confidential professional-client relationship with Appellant pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3283(A). The court allowed J.”
Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy (D. Ariz. 2023).
“For example, the confidentiality 14 privilege provided under § 32-3283 was not enacted for the protection and safety of the 15 public, but rather to encourage clients “to be candid with his or her mental health 16 professional.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-3283(A) — 7 cases
In Re: Mh2019-004895, 468 P.3d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“, asserting that A.R.S. § 32-3283 prohibited M.S. from testifying without Appellant’s consent.”
Gary Abeyta v. Sierra Tucson, Inc. & Heidi Sonntag, 319 P.3d 996 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“¶ 8 Pursuant to AR.S. § 32-3283(A), the confidential relationship between a licensed clinical social worker, such as Sonntag, and a patient “is the same as between an attorney and a client.”
In Re: Mh2023-004502 (Ariz. 2026).
“argued that the privilege and confidentiality requirements of § 32-3283 applied to M.G. A.R. therefore concluded that M.”
In Re Mh2018-004459 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“had a confidential professional-client relationship with Appellant pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3283(A). The court allowed J.”
In Re: Mh 2020-004882 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“DISCUSSION ¶12 Appellants argue that the two licensed clinical social workers testified in violation of A.R.S. § 32-3283, which establishes a privilege that, with certain exceptions, precludes a licensee from disclosing information received from a client.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-3283(B) — 2 cases
In Re: Mh2019-004895, 468 P.3d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“, asserting that A.R.S. § 32-3283 prohibited M.S. from testifying without Appellant’s consent.”
In Re: Mh 2019-004895 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“, asserting that A.R.S. § 32-3283 prohibited M.S. from testifying without Appellant’s consent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.