Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 337.636 (2026)

Privileged communications, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

337.636. Privileged communications, when. — Persons licensed under the provisions of sections 337.600 to 337.689 may not disclose any information acquired from persons consulting them in their professional capacity, or be compelled to disclose such information except:

(1) With the written consent of the client, or in the case of the client's death or disability, the client's personal representative or other person authorized to sue, or the beneficiary of an insurance policy on the client's life, health or physical condition;

(2) When such information pertains to a criminal act;

(3) When the person is a child under the age of eighteen years and the information acquired by the licensee indicated that the child was the victim of a crime;

(4) When the person waives the privilege by bringing charges against the licensee;

(5) When the licensee is called upon to testify in any court or administrative hearings concerning matters of adoption, adult abuse, child abuse, child neglect, or other matters pertaining to the welfare of clients of the licensee; or

(6) When the licensee is collaborating or consulting with professional colleagues or an administrative superior on behalf of the client.

--------

(L. 1989 H.B. 738 & 720 § 13, A.L. 2007 H.B. 780 merged with S.B. 308)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). · cites it 6× “In Missouri, the privilege is suspended as to information that pertains to a criminal act, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 337.636 (2) (1994), and in Texas when the information is sought in any criminal prosecution, compare Tex.”

State v. Edwards, 918 S.W.2d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant could not call two witnesses to testify that the victim “does not know the difference between truth and fantasy’ due to the existence of the privilege established in section 337.636, in denying…”

Bohrn v. Klick, 276 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Section 337.636 1 recognizes a privilege for communications between licensed clinical social workers and their clients.”

Felisha DeSpain vs. Nathan DeSpain & Brandi Judah, Guardian ad litem; Rose C. Brisco (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “In her third Point, Briscoe argues that the circuit court erred in granting sanctions based on Briscoe’s purported violation of the therapist-patient privilege found in § 337.636. Briscoe argues that Son was not meeting with Therapist in confidence for mental-health treatment,…”

Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Sw. Missouri, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Andrew Bailey, Attorney Gen., State of Missouri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). “035, communications of a licensed clinical social worker § 337.636, and mandatory reporting of child abuse § 210.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 337.636(5) — 1 case

Felisha DeSpain vs. Nathan DeSpain & Brandi Judah, Guardian ad litem; Rose C. Brisco (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). “In her third Point, Briscoe argues that the circuit court erred in granting sanctions based on Briscoe’s purported violation of the therapist-patient privilege found in § 337.636. Briscoe argues that Son was not meeting with Therapist in confidence for mental-health treatment,…”

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.