Transcript LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING Podcast Interview … · LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING Podcast...

Coach Mentor Podcast Transcript – Episode 19: Bill Lindberg – Legal Issues in Coaching of 17

Transcript

LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING

Podcast Interview by Robert Holmes with Bill Lindberg

Male Voice: This is the Coach Mentor Podcast proudly brought to you by Frazer Holmes and

Associates making the most of your greatest asset. This podcast covers a wide range of

topics related to the coaching industry. Interviews with industry leaders, coaching

experts and exploring areas of expertise closely related to the coaching industry. Here's

your host Robert Holmes.

RH: Hi and welcome to the Coach Mentor Podcast. In today’s episode we’ll be looking at the

issue of Legal Issues in Coaching with William Lindberg, President of The Ash Grove

Group in Minnesota.

Bill is the contributing author to Law and Ethics in Coaching which is put up by Patrick

Williams and Sharon Anderson. He’s written and spoken extensively for the National

Association of Law Placement and the American Association of Law Libraries as well as

other associations. Alongside that though, Bill is also a practicing coach, working with

executives for the Marshall Goldsmith Partners and The Goodstone Group in North

America.

Bill received his JD from the University of Minnesota and he’s a member of the bar

there. He received his certification as a professional coach graduating from the Hudson

Institute in Santa Barbara where he remains on faculty. He now holds his MCC with the

ICF and Bill has served as the Executive Director of the Association of Coach Training

Organizations.

He’s also past president of Rotary in Montecito, California and spent two years as a

Board Member with the Wilderness Inquiry which is something I hope we get into in

our discussion.

Bill’s been described as five parts brilliant, five parts storyteller and ten parts

humanitarian and that description should tell you a lot about his placement between

the worlds of law and coaching.

So now for the interview.

Hi Bill.


BL: Hello Robert.

RH: How are you doing today?

BL: I’m doing well. It’s Minnesota and winter so it’s chilly but I’m doing well.

RH: It’s great to talk with you today. You came highly recommended from Margaret

Kringbaum who had a lot to do with setting up the professional standards at the ICF so I

appreciate her passing on the detail. Before we get into the core of our discussion I

think we probably let the listeners know about the legal implications of our discussion.

BL: That’s a good thing to do, I think, Robert. We’re going to be covering general issues that

impinge upon coaches and their work. As a good lawyer would do in a situation such as

this, there are several disclaimers to clarify. We’re not creating any attorney-client

relationship during our call today. This is just a general discussion of themes and issues

that might arise in a coaches practice and their work. Whether that be you as individuals

or organizations.

And because your podcast is a global podcast, it’s very important to remind listeners

that every jurisdiction has its own nuances and specifics. So many of, I’ll reiterate this

during our podcast today, that many of the areas and issues that we’ll be considering it’s

wise for the prudent coach to seek legal guidance in that jurisdiction from a lawyer or

other professional that’s knowledgeable in the specific area of law. That can range from

liability issues or insurance, copyright and other intellectual property issues, and so on.

So there’ll probably be a few of those comments that we refer to during our

conversation today. It’s just a good thing to remember, especially in a global setting,

there is common law, civil law and many details that may have significant repercussions

depending on the specific jurisdiction.

RH: Right. So my hope for the listeners today would be that they at least begin to see what

the universe of legal implications are and they begin to think about their coaching within

that setting. Hopefully ask themselves questions that they may not have asked before.

Of course, you’re going to need to go get local help if you think something turns up

today that impinges on your practice.

BL: Exactly.

RH: Brilliant! Why don’t we start at the start. A large part of your early career was in law. It

was with the West Group, both West Publishing and Thompson West, before they

joined Reuters. Tell us about that?


BL: Well, it was very interesting. I had gone, immediately after I finished my law studies, I

had gone on an AIESEC Internship to Copenhagen. I worked for a savings bank that was

350 years old and I had always thought I would be a trial lawyer and I did that. I was at

West Publishing, which is a large premier legal publisher in the United States for a

couple of years.

But I wanted to practice law, so I did, and went from a large corporate setting to

entrepreneurial lawyer setting by hanging up my shingle and doing the general practice

of law which at that time you could do. This was in the 70s.

But I discovered that the time I had spent in the Danish savings bank as an intern, there

were many elements of that that I liked. So I had an opportunity, after practicing law for

some time, to return to West Publishing. That was initially on the print side dealing with

faculties of law and authors at universities throughout the US primarily.

Then during my time there, things shifted to the electronic side and I begin work on the

West Law side. There were a lot of issues. It was a situation where business met law and

also the academic world because many of our authors were law professors and so on. I

had an opportunity to travel and meet many very brilliant legal minds in the US and

occasionally other countries. I had a trip to Shanghai on a Lu’s Foundation venture one

time and also to Europe visiting with other publishers in that setting.

So in all I was there for about 20 years. Then when the transaction happened with

Thompson, it was time for members of the old team to pursue other interests. I

discovered how that goes in a merger and acquisition setting. I did some consulting for

Thompson on the way out for a time.

That was when, 15 years ago basically, that I began my enterprise, The Ash Grove

Group. We just celebrated our 15th anniversary of becoming incorporated.

RH: Fantastic! On the way out from Reuters, how did you grab the overhead branches of

coaching?

BL: Well, it was very interesting.

Initially, I thought I was going to be doing fundraising work. I did do advancement work

for a small non-profit association in Minnesota called Wilderness Inquiry.

I later learned, as I became familiar with the Hudson model and the Cycle of Renewal

and so on, how disorienting it can be when so much of one’s identity is connected to a

long term employment situation. I was known as Bill Lindberg, the man from West, as I


would go around to many universities and so on with my kind of relationship marketing

role and educational role. I had, of course, thrown myself into that role for many years.

It was very destabilizing to leave such a steady role. Coaching in the mid-90s was still

early on in its development and evolution so it was quite a shift.

I had this brief stint with this non-profit. Taking folks on outdoor adventure trips

regardless of their ability or disability or age and so on. That was an interesting venture

but I discovered, when I do fundraising for my local Rotary Club, I can sell a lot of raffle

tickets but I can do that better as an avocation rather than a vocation.

So it was clear to me that as I learned more about coaching, and went to a seminar in

Santa Barbara about Life Launch and learned more about this, that this sort of fit with

my management style in the corporate setting. And having been a university dormitory

counselor during my studies, this all sort of coalesced and came together. So in a burst

of enthusiasm, 15 years ago I started the Ash Grove Group.

RH: Wonderful! Was there any particular leading lights that you turned to, ran into, any

conferences that got you started?

BL: Well, there were several and I felt very fortunate to have some really excellent mentors

along this way.

A colleague of mine, a senior and well-known coaching colleague in Minnesota, Richard

Leider, who has written The Power of Purpose and about eight other books in this

domain about purpose and so on, was somebody I turned to initially. He was the one

who steered me to the Hudson Institute of Coaching in Santa Barbara. Then there were

others such as Richard Strozzi-Heckler who’s well-known in the domain of somatic

coaching.

As a lawyer, one does their due diligence, I was at that time – again that was the mid

90s – much like Gertrude Stein, I wanted to inquire whether there was a there there

because when you’re coming from a world of law and bar association conferences and

so on where there aren’t so many people or at least there weren’t in those days,

meeting in circles and sharing the way coaches share that was quite a leap but it was

one that I intuitively felt drawn to.

I suppose, for listeners on this podcast, it would be a fair disclosure to say I’m probably

more of a right-brain lawyer than many transactional, analytical lawyers who just in

rough terms are much more on the left brain side of their work.


RH: Yeah, I love that distinction. That’s something I’m fairly sure people will recognize that

creative side relationships.

BL: Right. That I think was something that drew me and attracted me to coaching because

as I was out of my corporate role, I think I was able to find more of my essence in this

work. I enjoyed the advising part of law. I had, during my brief time in practice, I had

about 10 jury trials, so I certainly had experience on the litigation side and there was a

part of me that was fed by that, but I think in the longer term I am very fortunate to

have found coaching at the time when it was emerging as a profession.

RH: Absolutely. You’ve stuck at that ever since. I’m guessing you’ve spent then 15 years

powering on in there. So incidentally, how did you get into the academic world? How

did you get over on faculty?

BL: Well, it was somewhat fortuitous I guess. I had finished up the program and the

program was sort of taking off. They needed help and they felt that I could fill a gap

there. So that’s how it worked.

RH: What areas are you teaching on?

BL: Well, among others, just sort of the general coach certification process and things that

many of your listeners have experienced. Offering feedback tied to competencies of

coaching. It’s covering the waterfront in an 8-month program using probably about 20

texts and highlighting some of the contents there both at skill level and the

knowledgebase basically of coaching. As there is more and more research, much of that

research coming from Australia, over the years, certainly the knowledgebase in the field

of coaching has been expanding.

RH: Does the legal world keep knocking at the side door?

BL: Well, in the sense that I worked with many lawyers and law-related organizations over

the years, just during the intervening time I moved from the Middle West in America

out to California for eight years. That was very interesting shifting locations for my

practice. My clients weren’t necessarily simply local and I have had a very close

relationship both with the Hudson Institute and Fielding Graduate University over time.

Those clients and educational experiences were both on a national and international

level rather than simply local. This work, as your listeners know, provides you sufficient

independence and flexibility that you can operate pretty nimbly.


RH: Beautiful! Why don’t we turn to, I guess the core of the discussion is to talk about legal

issues in coaching, one of the things I want to start with is the distinction perhaps

between ethics and legal issues?

BL: Legal or regulations, rules, whether it’s a statutory rule or a regulation derived from

that, has the force of law. There’s probably a continuum, I suppose, between morality,

ethics, law, and conscience – a lot of these domains which is very interesting. I think

this is something that the coaching field has wrestled with along the way.

Periodically there had been calls for a regulation on the profession much like, I’d say, a

mental health discipline and so on. That has an attendant set of infrastructure that goes

with it typically such as licensure, professional boards and perhaps examinations along

the way to enter the field.

For example, those that are therapists – having a mental health regulatory scheme –

have a situation in which their license can be withdrawn thus far at least.

I’m most familiar with the International Coach Federation and its structure because I

served on the internal review board which is kind of the appellate body of ethics

complaints and so on over the years. I had a three year term in that mode and I know

the European folks and others have disciplinary procedures. At least, in so far as I know,

the most severe sanction is – in the ICF for example, you could lose your credential or

you could be expelled from the organization by an ethical breach of the ICF code of

ethics for example.

A legal situation or an example of the force of law would be, for say a doctor or a lawyer

or some other field, you can lose your license, be disbarred and prohibited from

practicing law and there are other disciplinary measures short of that.

I suppose that’s just the difference in some respects, is that law attempts to, in some

cases codify or regulate ethical norms that are often the hallmark of an established

profession.

RH: Right. So at the moment the coaching profession is governed by adherence to ethical

principles rather than codifying that and having a set of regulations around it?

BL: Right. There are attempts, for example, the ICF Code of Ethics, which is really a set of

guidelines more than an exhaustive code.

Perhaps an example here just to show the difference would be if you have a well-

established or long established profession. For example, the practice of law in the


United States has model rules of professional conduct. Each of those rules has extensive

regulations and annotations to clarify in great detail what those regulations mean. In

coaching, you have approximately 28 principles. Again, depending on which code you’re

looking at whether it’s the European code or other organizational codes, this is at a level

of generalization. Of course lawyers’ definitions are very important. Parsing of statutory

construction is very important. But you don’t have the breath and depth of guidance

that more established, more long established, fields have.

This is certainly then evolving the code of ethics. During my time as a coach, it has

undergone three major revisions. At least between the code of ethics and the set of

competencies, there’s guidance expressed in that code of ethics. But it’s slightly

different than a statutory regulation, for example, where there might be a disciplinary

board that again can provide sanctions so severe including loss of one’s license.

So for the moment, at least in the world of coaching that I’m familiar with, there isn’t

that licensure provision. There are guidelines and there are codes to guide a coach and

the coach-client relationship.

RH: From my point of view, my opinion there is that’s great. We should leave it that way

because, at least here in Australia, heavily regulated industries like psychology become

just really bogged down underneath red tape. A third of the person’s time is spent with

compliance issues rather than getting on with the job.

BL: Absolutely. I think that’s been one of the fundamental distinctions between the

flexibility of coaching. You have a continuum, of course.

Anyone that begins their studies in this field understands how at one end of a

continuum you have business consulting and so on. Then you have mentoring, coaching

and therapy. Again the distinctions are often blurred but the distinction at least

between mental health professionals viewing therapists in that mode. Oftentimes a

client comes to that professional because there’s some pathology involved. Whereas in

coaching, most coaching programs that I’m familiar with, the CIT for example describes

a client as creative, resourceful and whole.

Virtually every coach is approaching their client in the Carl Rogers unconditional positive

regard way that we relate to clients. That that person is fundamentally healthy or is

probably not a good candidate for coaching but rather to some other modality.

RH: I agree. Do you know of any cases in which coaches have been sued by clients?


BL: I’m not familiar at the appellate level and I don’t have the access to West Law or

LexisNexis that I once did. But if that were the case, I think word travels pretty fast

among associations. I’m really not familiar with that. My hunch is that if there has been

some kind of breach and we can get into professional liability insurance and I think we’ll

plan to do that.

There are more informal ways of resolving disputes that coaches are involved in.

Certainly the complaint process and the ethics committee of professional coaching

organizations provide an opportunity to mediate those differences. More and more

coaches are involved in higher stakes situations of Executive Coaching that’s been going

on for a long time. In my view it’d be who’s somebody with assets to protect, to have

professional liability insurance, for example.

My suspicion is if there are grievances and those grievances have then been filed that

they’d been resolved short of at least appellate litigation and that takes awhile to work

its way through a system. At the moment if there have been disputes, and I know there

have certainly in ethics committees and so on, often those are probably resolved

informally through either mediation or arbitration. That’s my sense.

RH: Certainly that was the same response that I received from the ICF in Australasia. They

knew of no law cases that have been resolved within the legal system. They knew of the

number that have been resolved out of court.

BL: Right.

RH: Just a quick definition, you’ve used the word there appellate level or appellate

litigation? What does that mean?

BL: Well, in law, and I think this is true in most jurisdictions, whether its common law

country or civil law country, if there’s a dispute that goes to a court or a tribunal for

resolution you would have the trial court where the parties would both go. Then an

adversary system at least present their case and then a judge typically would decide that

case. If the losing party is disappointed with that matter they can appeal the matter to a

higher court. Then those are the decisions that are typically reported by legal publishers.

Now with services such as LexisNexis or West Law or Bloomberg’s Legal Service, with

computer precision and accuracy you can search in a keyword search context for those

precedents which are important in an Anglo-American legal system such as Australia.

That’s why it’s the appellate court – the appeals from these disputes at the trial court

level – which form the basis of precedents and guide judges in interpreting the law.


RH: I’m wondering what the main circumstances would be under which someone may get

sued because an appellate level litigation suit will take place at some point? Can we

theorize about where that might happen? You’ve mentioned big business and CEOs.

That’s obviously a beginning.

BL: Well, if a coach is involved I would say with any client, again in a high stakes situation.

Just as an example, if confidentiality was breached. I could imagine a situation in a

securities context for example. If a company was making a public offering of stock

issuance and so on and a coach inadvertently or just oblivious to the codes of ethics

disclosed something that ought not to have been disclosed or inaccurately. Or there was

a conflict if there was some merger and acquisition about to happen and somehow

confidentiality was breached. I could imagine if that could be traced to a particular

individual that was in a coaching setting, it would be an actionable matter.

These are human interactions, I can imagine if a client were depressed or something and

perhaps in need of therapeutic intervention rather than coaching. And in a very serious

matter, if somebody committed suicide and this was a client of a coach and there was

no indication of that. I could imagine a family being very upset if the coach didn’t spot

warning signs, if there were warning signs.

RH: It’s really good to raise those scenarios. Those are clear and present issues. Hanging out

with coaches one gets the feeling of invulnerability, you know. We’re coaches. We’re

not experts. We’re not telling people what to do. They’re coming up with their own

solutions.

BL: Right. At least in the United States and I think many other countries as well, there are an

awful lot of lawyers around. Sometimes frivolous matters get taken up. I could imagine a

situation where, just this goes back to the regulation front, if a son or daughter or

spouse of a legislator had a coaching experience that went in a very bad way. This could

cause any number of repercussions such as cries for regulation and so on. Thinking the

consumers and the public weren’t protected and need protection for example.

RH: Wasn’t there are an example of that in Colorado? A regulatory push?

BL: I think that was part of what happened. That is where, and I am not sure of the

particulars or what triggered it, but it went to legislative hearings in Colorado. Then at

the time, budgets were tight and there wasn’t an appetite to create another regulatory

structure. I think there was a sufficient showing by Colorado coaches and the ICF that

the self-regulatory procedures were quite responsibly in place. But it took a great deal


of effort to fend off that regulatory initiative. That’s the kind of example where

something could quite easily be triggered.

Or somebody had disappointing result in a career coaching situation. You know, coaches

have been known to give advice rather than just elicit the client’s decisions. If somebody

lost a job, again say a breach of confidentiality, or things get complex in sponsor and

client and team interactions, for example, in a corporate setting. There can be any

number of conflicts that could become adversarial.

RH: So what steps could a coach take to reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit?

BL: Well, I think there are several things and perhaps it begins with clear contracting with

your client. Having a clear written agreement with a client about focusing on what your

work would be. It’s hard to know how you could stop a disappointed client form suing

you. But I think if you were sued in a court of law, there are aspects of your practice

such as choosing the corporate form you would practice in by becoming a corporation

where that might limit to your exposure. And as I mentioned earlier, having professional

liability insurance that would include something like the cost of defense if you were

sued, because that can be an enormously expensive proposition if a matter does go to

trial for instance. The cost of defense of that as well as the time and energy involved can

be a very significant issue for a coach or anyone.

RH: So getting your agreement in writing upfront: what are the terms and conditions, how

long is it going to last, how do we measure success, what are the billing requirements...

BL: Right, so the things such as fees, timeframes, and again, it’s very interesting for me

sometimes to see how coaches that are eager to get business may promise things that

are beyond their control to deliver. I think keeping your promises and representations

close to what you have some control over.

For example in a transitional career coaching, it would be highly risky to promise that a

client in working with you will get a job. That’s not necessarily in the coach’s control. But

giving your best effort to assist them in a career search or job search, that’s perhaps a

better way of stating it.

Another element of this is in retainer agreements or engagement agreements. If you

have a code of ethics that you subscribe to. I, for example, have an addendum of ethical

concepts or principles that I adhere to. Some people incorporate by reference or attach

the code ethics of the ICF or another organization and attach it to their engagement

letter. So that somebody knows, first of all, that this is a coach principled and adheres to


ethical principles and it’s a good discussion point if a client has questions of a coach to

discuss those upfront.

RH: Would you raise issues about certification, or I belong to this professional body?

BL: You could. There again, that potentially creates legal issues of its own. If you think of the

distinctions, again I am most familiar with the ICF, professional certified coach or

associate certified coach, or master certified coach in turf law at least in the United

States. If you hold a credential, you might be held to a higher standard of care in your

coaching work. Those credentials have pretty thoroughly articulated standards that are

described in holding such a credential. And if in a particular coaching engagement you

did not adhere to that level of standard of care that would be the sort of thing that a

lawyer representing a plaintiff would be quick to point out.

RH: Anyone going to PCC or MCC for example would, you would hope, be aiming for those

higher ethical standards anyway.

BL: Exactly. I mean, that part of the rigor and I think the credentialing process is becoming

more rigorous rather than less. Personally, I think that’s a good thing for the profession

because it gains more respects as a profession or as a field.

RH: So you mentioned two other things there. One was have a look at your corporate

structure and the other insurance. If you we get dig down in to that a little bit. What do

you mean by your corporate structure?

BL: Well again, this is going to vary greatly depending on jurisdiction.

A person can go into business and just print off business cards, declare themselves a

coach and be a sole proprietor. You could be in a partnership with one or other coaches.

Or you could form with a group of people, say a corporate structure. There are tax

implications. There are recordkeeping implications of these business structures. There

are also benefits.

For example, one of the reasons that I chose to become a corporation was there’s a

limitation of liability. If there is a dispute or something, it’s the assets of the corporation

that are vulnerable not your entire personal assets. So long as you perform the

standards and requirements such as annual meetings, articles of incorporation and by-

laws, and that you adhere to that, and keep that corporate form intact. And of course,

there are accounting and tax regulations that is important to stay not run afoul with the

local taxing authorities. Again, that’s beyond the scope of our conversation but it may


relate. If you have a more complex structure, it may require unemployment insurance or

other deposits that get made to your taxing authority.

RH: Yeah. Paying your taxes properly certainly does pose a legal issue for companies running

themselves properly. Cash flow, making sure that you pay your staff properly – many

small businesses collapse under the weight of those things so it would be good to look

at it for coaches.

BL: Absolutely. The statistics aren’t encouraging on that front. It’s very interesting because

in my observation, many people are drawn to coaching because they enjoy the

interaction with people and I’ve heard it described as ‘administrivia’.

You know, many people don’t like the business side of sending out invoices and often

they’ll try to delegate that or do it and bookkeeping or accounting but those are

important elements. The way I reframe that basically because I don’t particularly like

sending out invoices or doing that side of the business. But the way I’d reframe that is –

and I think this applies to all aspects of the regulations that small businesses work under

– if I want to do this work, doing that work enables me to continue to do the work, and

if I ignore or just give up on it, that’s not going to bode well for the sustainability of

staying in business. That helps to some extent.

The one thing I will point out here is that as there are more and more coaches in the

world, just as your podcast as an example, there are many more business interests

willing to create products for coaches that helps streamline this operations and are

specifically customized for coaches.

RH: So insurance... You’ve mentioned unemployment insurance? I guess director’s

insurance, public liability, professional indemnity, any other sort of insurances, getting

good advice from an insurance agent would be advisable?

BL: Right. I think some kind of professional liability coverage that covers your work as a

coach.

It’s very interesting. I noticed that at least the underwriter, which is affiliate of Lloyd’s of

London, for ICF has boosted their coverage possibility. There used to be a cap of a

hundred thousand U.S. dollars but now their incremental coverages... which I think

again is an example of how coaching is beginning to arrive and people at least have the

possibility of higher earning power. It used to be that if your revenues exceeded

$100,000.00, you were out of luck for purchasing that insurance. Now, there’s a pro-

rated premium to cover a higher level of revenue as well.


Check your local jurisdiction. Be sure the type of coverage you get covers the work that

you do and be sure you disclose accurately the questions on the application or that

could be a problem.

RH: Well, especially if you work overseas or if you are working say on Skype and you’ve got a

completely different legal jurisdiction to where your client lives.

BL: Exactly. It points out, the world is becoming more the term VUCA, the acronym of

Volatile Unpredictable Complex and Ambiguous. Those forces that inhabit the world

that I’m part of are sort of how lawyers stay occupied.

RH: Absolutely. So earlier on, we mentioned the circumstances under which a coach may get

sued and we included mergers and acquisitions, the intelligence industry, therapeutic

intervention, political sensitivity. What I wanted to just drill down into a bit I guess is the

breach of confidentiality. What about coach-client confidentiality? Does such a thing

exist with coaches?

BL: Well, to a much lesser extent. And again, this relates to the kind of length of existence of

this field as an identified field.

If you talk about attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege or priest or

minister-parishioner privilege, those are fields who have been around for hundreds of

years and those privileges such that the contents of conversations or writings are

privileged, that is privileged in a sense that they cannot be disclosed if they are part of

doctor-patient or attorney-client relationship for example. Or someone in the

confessional with a priest, the priest is under a responsibility not to disclose the

contents of those confession.

Coaching has not been around that long and at least in codes of evidence that I’m

familiar with, there is not a privilege unless it’s specifically identified and authorized by

the statutory framework. I am not familiar with any jurisdiction that respects a coach-

client privilege such that records cannot be subpoenaed.

So, I think be careful of what you note in your records. Some coaches use a code so it’s

perhaps difficult to decipher. This may have an impact on both how you keep your

records and, another element that sometimes can be ignored, how you dispose of your

records.

So the security in which you keep your records and not do that in a negligent way or

leave papers out on your desk if you’re meeting with other clients. Those are things to


attend to. Then if it comes time to dispose of records, do that in a secure and

appropriate way.

RH: We do work for the government and we work for agencies that do work for the

government. In more than one case, we’ve had decisions overturned on the basis of

scrutinizing the records of our coaches.

Our coaches have been in a situation – they’ve written records, they’ve gone back to the

government department that funded the coaching and said we think you’ve got such

and such wrong and they’ve presented our record. We’re okay with that. Their opinion

will be relied upon. Not in a legal sense. Not in the sense that they’ve been viewed as a

psychologist or a professional. But just that they’ve had very, very engaging and intense

discussions with people and very often discover more information about a situation

than anyone else in that area has. But you got to have your eyes open and realize, “Hey,

who’s going to read this report. It isn’t just going to be my client. It could be a lot of

other people.”

BL: This goes back to what I was saying about clear and comprehensive contracting. I think

it’s wise in your engagement letter with a client to have a phrase along the lines of “our

conversations or interactions are confidential subject to the limitations of the law”...

RH: Right.

BL: ...or subject to whatever restrictions that would apply that you can’t control. But what

you can control is that it would be confidential unless ordered by a court.

RH: Right.

BL: But it’s not a carte blanche or totally airtight confidentiality that coaches have.

RH: So what about contracts that have three or four stakeholders? Let’s imagine a situation

where a CEO asks you to come in and do performance coaching with an executive. So

you’ve got the company that’s hiring you, the executive you’re seeing and yourself?

What are some of the implications for a coach to think about there?

BL: Well, a lot of this goes back to how that contract gets established. It’s very interesting.

Typically, in an organizational setting, you’ll have a sponsor for the project and

somebody’s paying the bill typically the organization and you have often involvement

from Human Resources and then the coachee or the client if you’re working with an

individual.


Getting clear upfront about what can be disclosed and who’s going to disclose what to

whom and having that really clear at the outset is so important. Because otherwise, it’s

not at all uncommon in the situation you posed for the sponsor or the CEO or boss to

say, “Well how’s Fred or Joan doing?” and then what do you say as a coach. That’s

something to think about.

Remember what you’ve promised to your client because, as we all know in this work,

it’s your word and trust that is the foundation for this coaching relationship to work. If

that is not fully understood about what is and what is not going to be disclosed, it can

cause no end of trouble.

RH: So get that clear upfront really. That’s the...

BL: Right. That’s the best. Unanticipated things happen but do your best to get it clear at

the contracting stage...

RH: Beautiful.

BL: ...in your statement of work or however you’re going to have the engagement letter

crafted.

RH: My mind turns to the fact that you’ve got a bit of an academic vein. You’re on faculty

with the Hudson Institute and so forth. The other piece that comes in to that is, I guess,

the issue of copyright infringement, articles, plagiarism and so forth. I see those two as

related because coaches often get into training, they produce manuals, you’ve done

that, I’ve done that. What are the implications there?

BL: Well, they can be serious. Both reputationally or just plagiarism is plagiarism. If you

borrow, and again, it’s not uncommon for a profession such as this with high levels of

collaboration and so on. That’s one of the principles outlined in the ICF code of ethics,

about respecting copyright.

At least in the United States, once an idea is transferred to tangible form, that’s

protected. Even without a copyright notice.

The safest thing to do is if you’re going to use something, someone else’s copyrighted

material, to ask permission and give credit for doing that. Sometimes there could be a

license fee involved and so on. But if you represent work to be your own and in fact it’s

someone else’s and not your own, there are potentially repercussions about copyright

infringement that can flow from that. Not just that, but reputational damage can be

done.


There have been several instances where that’s happened. Where somebody has

represented work to be theirs and in fact their borrowed a little bit of this and a little bit

of that. In fact, it was someone else’s. Then suddenly they find themselves getting a

demand letter to cease and desist from copyright infringement and that can be

expensive.

RH: Especially if they’re making money from it. So if you’re in coach training let’s make really

sure you get permission. Let’s make sure it’s well-referenced, well-researched and that

you’re not taking credit from someone else’s work.

BL: Exactly. That’s just an example. There are a lot of dimensions of doing this work and

doing it at a high level, on a professional level. I think that’s just one example of many

where you have to adhere to the law or if you run afoul of it, well law has a long arm.

RH: Yeah it does… and Google finds everything...

BL: Well, particularly in a Google environment.

RH: So is there’s anything else that you feel we’ve missed that you might like to say to our

listeners?

BL: Well, despite the disclaimers, I hope we’ve done something that has specific value to

your listeners. It’s been a pleasure, Robert, working with you in doing this podcast.

RH: It’s been absolutely fantastic. Bill, thanks so much for your time and the effort that

you’ve placed in crossing these two fields. I don’t know how easy it’s been for you to

hold those two fields side by side. As you said, legal tends to be very left-brained and

coaching tends to be very right-brained.

BL: I think for many people coming, as many coaches do, from an existing field, perhaps this

is a thought to close on. When you come from a field where you’re respected and

rewarded for what you know and dispensing advice it’s very tricky to unlearn some of

those deep-seated behaviour.

I guess in my own case, lawyers, for example, listen in a certain way, particularly

litigators. Thinking how is this comment going to affect my client. It’s much different

than what I would describe as more pure listening or active listening with an open mind

as opposed to listening with an agenda. As I worked with many lawyers, some of whom

are lawyer-coaches, that often is an area of struggle – just listening with an open mind

as an open container as opposed to listening with an agenda or a thought in mind.


RH: Beautiful. Well, thanks again for taking the time to speak with us today. I hope as we go

along, I get to call you again and do a follow up. Hopefully not because suddenly there’s

been an outstanding law case against a coach. I hope that doesn’t...

BL: That would be a sad reason to reconvene.

RH: I agree. Thanks Bill.

Well, we look forward to you joining us next time when we discuss the topic of

Managing Stakeholders with Ann Whyte from WhyteCo.

Remember to go to the podcast page on our website for the show notes from today and

links to organizations, businesses, books and all the research mentioned in the program.

Male Voice: You’ve been listening to the coach mentor podcast. Find us on the website at

www.frazerholmes.com/podcast. Join us next time for another exciting installment of

the coach mentor podcast.

END

Transcript LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING Podcast Interview … · LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING Podcast...

Documents

Transcript of Transcript LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING Podcast Interview … · LEGAL ISSUES IN COACHING Podcast...