Recently, I asked a simple question in a space full of mental health professionals, and what happened when therapists were asked about Google reviews was more consistent—and more revealing—than I expected.
The conversation wasn’t theoretical. It wasn’t about marketing strategy in general. It centered around a very real and increasingly common practice in private practice spaces: public advertising of “five-star Google reviews” and “client testimonials.” And the responses were clear, “It’s simply unethical.”
Why Therapists Are Questioning Google Reviews in Clinical Practice
In clinical therapy like counseling and psychology, ethical standards consistently emphasize that the therapeutic relationship is fundamentally different from most service-based industries. When therapists were asked about Google reviews, the most common concern was not marketing—it was the power dynamic that can exist (unwantedly) in the therapeutic relationship.
Even when a client technically “chooses” to leave a review, clinicians noted that the relational context matters. Clients are not consumers in the traditional sense. They are individuals who have often shared vulnerable, deeply personal experiences in a space built on trust, care, and clinical responsibility. Because of that, many clinicians questioned whether any request for a public review can ever truly be neutral.
What Therapists Said When Asked About Google Reviews
After sharing the post, I received feedback from a wide range of clinicians—private practice owners, associates, and community mental health professionals.
What stood out most was not disagreement, but alignment. Many therapists shared that they do not ask for reviews from clients at all. Some emphasized that their “measure of success” is not found in online ratings, but in full caseloads, consistent referrals, and word-of-mouth within the community. One comment that stood out simply stated:
“My review is the consistency of my caseload and my referral sources.”
Others noted that while clients occasionally leave reviews independently, they intentionally avoid initiating or encouraging them because of ethical concerns related to undue influence, confidentiality, and the inherent power imbalance in therapy.
What the Ethics Codes Say (ACA + Texas LPC Context)
When therapists were asked about Google reviews, many immediately referenced professional ethical codes.
The American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics, Section C.3.b (Testimonials) cautions counselors against soliciting testimonials from current clients or from individuals who may be vulnerable to undue influence due to the counseling relationship. The core concern is whether a client can freely decline without feeling pressure, guilt, or concern about the therapeutic relationship.
In Texas, the Texas Administrative Code for Licensed Professional Counselors (Title 22, Part 30, Chapter 681) does not specifically reference “Google reviews,” but it does address broader ethical responsibilities that apply directly to this conversation.
Key sections frequently referenced in ethical discussions include:
- §681.38 (Unprofessional Conduct / Dual Relationships / Exploitation principles) – emphasizing that licensees must avoid relationships or actions that could be exploitative or place clients at risk of undue influence or harm.
- §681.41 (Advertising and Misrepresentation) – requiring counselors to avoid misleading representations of services and to ensure that public communications do not create false or exaggerated impressions.
Taken together, these ethical frameworks do not explicitly say “do not ask for Google reviews,” but they clearly prioritize protecting clients from pressure, influence, and compromised autonomy within the counseling relationship.
That distinction is important. The question is less about what is technically allowed and more about what aligns with ethical intent: protecting client welfare over marketing advantage.
The Tension Therapists Are Naming
One of the most honest themes that came up in the conversation was tension. Therapists acknowledged that Google reviews absolutely matter in today’s digital landscape. They influence search rankings, visibility, and client access to care. And yet, when therapists were asked about Google reviews, many still landed in the same place: just because something helps marketing doesn’t mean it aligns with ethics in a clinical profession.
Several clinicians also pointed out a broader systemic issue: therapists are often expected to compete in a marketing environment designed for businesses with very different ethical constraints. That tension is real. But so is the responsibility that comes with the profession.
What This Conversation Revealed
What happened when therapists were asked about Google reviews wasn’t controversy—it was clarity. Across perspectives, there was a consistent thread:
- Client welfare comes before marketing
- Therapeutic relationships carry inherent power dynamics
- Undue influence matters, even when subtle
- Ethics codes exist to protect clients, not make marketing harder
And perhaps most importantly, many clinicians reframed success entirely. Not in stars. Not in testimonials. But in relationships, referrals, and sustained clinical work.
A Final Reflection
For nearly a decade, our practice has chosen not to solicit reviews from clients. That decision has likely cost visibility in some ways. But it has also protected something far more important: the integrity of the therapeutic relationship.
One of the most meaningful google reviews my company La Luz Counseling received recently came from someone who never became a client. They called to inquire about services, were not a fit for insurance, and were still guided toward another provider. They later wrote:
“Amazing place I called to see if they accept my insurance. The customer service was amazing and even though they do not accept my insurance they did help recommend someone that does accept my insurance. This just shows that they are in this field to help others mental health rather than worry about their own business and pocket.”
And maybe that is the real measure of this work. Not how loudly it is rated. But how faithfully it is practiced.