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× “§ 36-539(B) (“The evidence presented by the petitioner or the patient shall include the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder.”
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., 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, 583 P.3d 744 (Ariz. 2026).
· cites it 20× ““told the patient that their conversations were not confidential for purposes of any mental health proceedings and the COT process,” (2) “she had only one contact with A.”
In re Mh 2019-004895, No. 1 CA-MH 19-0065 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 23, 2020).
· cites it 12× “§ 36-539(B) (“The evidence presented by the petitioner or the patient shall include the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder.”
In re Mh 2020-004882, No. 1 CA-MH 20-0090 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 13, 2021).
· cites it 8× “§ 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, No. 1 CA-MH 20-0090 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021).
· cites it 7× “Appellants both allege that one of their two witnesses was not permitted to testify due to a confidential behavioral health professional-client relationship under A.R.S. § 32-3283.”
In re Mh2018-004459, No. 1 CA-MH 18-0061 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 13, 2019).
· cites it 5× “D. was confidential, but found J.D. reliable when she testified that Appellant signed a confidentiality waiver at intake when booked in the jail.”
Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy, No. 3:21-cv-08013 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 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).
“§ 36-539(B) (“The evidence presented by the petitioner or the patient shall include the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder.”
Gary Abeyta v. Sierra Tucson, Inc., 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, 583 P.3d 744 (Ariz. 2026).
““told the patient that their conversations were not confidential for purposes of any mental health proceedings and the COT process,” (2) “she had only one contact with A.”
In re Mh2018-004459, No. 1 CA-MH 18-0061 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 13, 2019).
“D. was confidential, but found J.D. reliable when she testified that Appellant signed a confidentiality waiver at intake when booked in the jail.”
In re Mh 2020-004882, No. 1 CA-MH 20-0090 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 13, 2021).
“§ 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).
“§ 36-539(B) (“The evidence presented by the petitioner or the patient shall include the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder.”
In re Mh 2019-004895, No. 1 CA-MH 19-0065 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 23, 2020).
“§ 36-539(B) (“The evidence presented by the petitioner or the patient shall include the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder.”
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.