On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Mental Health Issues & the New York State Courts 2017: Confidentiality, Behavioral Health & the Justice System

Released on: May. 31, 2017
Running Time: 06:07:45

Approximately 20 percent of Americans experience some type of mental illness in a given year, and the prevalence of mental disorders among individuals involved in the criminal justice system, and some areas of the civil legal system, is even higher. This year’s Mental Health Issues & the New York State Courts program will address the confidentiality issues raised when individuals living with mental illness are involved with the criminal and civil justice systems in New York State.

Practising Law Institute gratefully acknowledges the support and assistance of the New York State Courts Office of Court Administration and the CUCS Academy for Justice-Informed Practice. 

You will learn:

  • Constitutional and common law sources of the right to privacy of medical and behavioral health information
  • Federal and state laws protecting the confidentiality of medical and behavioral health information
  • Exceptions permitting the sharing of information with law enforcement, health providers, and other entities
  • Situations where individuals are asked to waive confidentiality as a condition of participating in justice-related programs
  • Ethical considerations for lawyers who seek to obtain or share confidential information or who represent individuals whose information is being sought

This program is designed for New York State judges, court attorneys, law clerks, prosecutors, defense attorneys, attorneys in private practice, and mental health system professionals involved in the New York State justice system.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:07:45]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction* [00:06:08]
    Carol Fisler
  • Medical & Behavioral Health Information Privacy: The Foundations [01:00:51]
    Susan Batkin, LMSW, Carol Fisler
  • Medical and Behavioral Health Privacy Statutes and the Justice System [01:29:14]
    Valerie Raine, Suzette E. Gordon, Kate Wagner-Goldstein
  • Breaking Confidentiality: Ethical Perspectives from the Legal and Behavioral Health Fields [00:31:37]
    Merrill Rotter, MD, Carol Fisler
  • Confidentiality, Behavioral Health and the Justice System: Case Studies from the Criminal Justice System [01:30:29]
    Carol Fisler, David C. Kelly, Virginia Barber Rioja, Ph.D, Colleen King
  • Confidentiality, Behavioral Health and the Justice System: Case Studies from Civil Matters [01:29:27]
    Ignacio Jaureguilorda, Jota Borgmann, Suzette E. Gordon, Sheila Shea, Jennifer Correale

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Foundations of Privacy of Health Information (March 8, 2017)
    Carol Fisler
  • Medical and Behavioral Health Privacy Statutes and the Justice System (March 2, 2017)
    Suzette E. Gordon
  • Tom O'Donnell, Daniel H. Willick, Suzette E. Gordon, Achieving Coordination of Care in Behavioral Health: A Call for Revisiting Confidentiality Laws, American Health Lawyers Association Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2012)
    Suzette E. Gordon
  • Confidentiality and the Justice System: Heightened Protections for HIV and Substance Use Disorder Records (March 3, 2017)
    Kate Wagner-Goldstein
  • Ethical Exceptions to Confidentiality in Clinical Care (March 13, 2017)
    Merrill Rotter
  • Confidentiality and Clients Who Threaten Violence: Ethical Considerations for Lawyers (March 14, 2017)
    Carol Fisler
  • Message to Our Nation’s Health Care Providers from the Director of the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health & Human Services (January 15, 2013)
    Carol Fisler
  • HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health—U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (February 20, 2014)
    Carol Fisler
  • Mental Health Courts and Other Alternatives to Incarceration: A Confidentiality Audit (March 3, 2017)
    Carol Fisler, Claudia Montoya, David C. Kelly
  • Authorization for Release of Health Information Pursuant to HIPAA (Office of Court Administration Official Form No. 960)
    Carol Fisler
  • Ongoing Release of Confidential Information—Brooklyn Mental Health Court, New York State Supreme Court—Kings County Criminal Term
    Carol Fisler
  • Consent for Release of Information Concerning Medical/Surgical, Alcoholism/Drug Abuse and/or Psychiatric Patient—Brooklyn Mental Health Court, Brooklyn Supreme Court
    Carol Fisler
  • The Duty to Disclose under Brady v. Maryland and New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(b) (March 2, 2017)
    David C. Kelly
  • Additional Resources Regarding Mental Health and Criminal Justice Collaborations (March 29, 2017)
    Carol Fisler
  • Case Studies from Civil Matters (March 8, 2017)
    Jota Borgmann
  • Kevin M. Cremin, Jean Philips, Claudia Sickinger, M.D., Jeanette Zelhof, Ensuring a Fair Hearing for Litigants with Mental Illnesses: The Law and Psychology of Capacity, Admissibility, and Credibility Assessments in Civil Proceedings, 17 Brooklyn Law Journal of Law And Policy, Issue 2 (2009)
    Jota Borgmann
  • Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Michael V. Gervasi, Guardians and Guardians Ad Litem in New York, Richmond County Bar Association Journal, (Fall 2009)
    Jota Borgmann
  • Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Matthias W. Li, Shani R. Friedman, Guardians Ad Litem in Housing Court, N.Y. Real Property Law Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Winter 2009)
    Jota Borgmann
  • Jeanette Zelhof, Andrew Goldberg, Hina Shamsi, Protecting the Rights of Litigants with Diminished Capacity in the New York City Housing Courts, Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal, Vol. 3.733 (2006)
    Jota Borgmann
  • Privacy Potholes: AOT, HIPAA and the Limited Disclosure of Mental Health Records (February 21, 2017)
    Jennifer Correale
  • Mental Health Status of Witnesses and Litigants (March 3, 2017)
    Sheila Shea
  • Access to Confidential Clinical Information by Guardians and Guardians Ad Litem (March 3, 2017)
    Sheila Shea
  • Confidential Clinical Information and Proceedings to Dissolve Corporations (March 3, 2017)
    Sheila Shea
  • Confidentiality, Behavioral Health and the Justice System: Case Studies from Civil Matters (March 20, 2017) (PowerPoint slides)
    Sheila Shea

Presentation Material


  • Medical Privacy: HIPAA & You as the Parent, Child, or Loved One of a Patient
  • Nursing Home Residents & Health Care Decisions in New York
  • The Foundations of Privacy of Medical & Behavioral Health Information
    Carol Fisler
  • Medical and Behavioral Health Privacy Statutes and the Justice System
    Suzette E. Gordon
  • Confidentiality and the Justice System: Heightened Protections for HIV and Substance Use Disorder Records
    Kate Wagner-Goldstein
  • Breaking Confidentiality: Ethical Perspectives from the Legal and Behavioral Health Fields
    Carol Fisler, Merrill Rotter, MD
  • Mental Health Court: A Confidentiality Audit
    Carol Fisler, David C. Kelly, Claudia Montoya, Virginia Barber Rioja, Ph.D
  • Confidentiality, Behavioral Health and the Justice System: Case Studies from Civil Matters
    Sheila Shea
Chairperson(s)
Carol Fisler ~ Director, Mental Health Court Programs, Center for Court Innovation
Moderator(s)
Ignacio Jaureguilorda ~ Director, Poverty Justice Solutions/Legal Hand, Center for Court Innovation
Valerie Raine ~ Statewide Drug Court Coordinator, Office of Policy and Planning , NYS Office of Court Administration
Speaker(s)
Susan Batkin, LMSW ~ Director, Academy for Justice-Informed Practice, Center for Urban Community Services
Jota Borgmann ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Mobilization for Justice
Jennifer Correale ~ Executive Agency Counsel, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
Suzette E. Gordon ~ Compliance and Contracting Officer, Bronx Partners for Healthy Communities
David C. Kelly ~ Assistant District Attorney, Chief of Mental Health Court, Alternative to Incarceration Bureau, Kings County District Attorney's Office
Colleen King ~ Senior Attorney - Mental Health Unit, Brooklyn Defender Services
Virginia Barber Rioja, Ph.D ~ Clinical Director of Mental Health, Correctional Health Services, Rikers Island Correctional Facility/NYC Health + Hospitals; , Adjunct Professor,New York University
Merrill Rotter, MD ~ Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Director of the Division of Law and Psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Sheila Shea ~ Director, Mental Hygiene Legal Services, Third Judicial Department, State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Kate Wagner-Goldstein ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Legal Action Center
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email
“I thought the program content, materials, and presenters were excellent and I leave here with knowledge that I will use in practice.”
2016 Attendee

“Very insightful.”
2016 Attendee


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.