Download the document – Professional Ethics in Practice: LASW Case Interpretations<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n October 2026 \u00b7 Prepared by M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Moors<\/p>\n\n\n\n This material brings together 13 practice cases and their ethically sound resolutions, arranged under seven themes. It is based on decisions and consultations of the Ethics Commission of the Latvian Association of Social Workers (LASW), decisions of institutional ethics commissions, and interpretations published by LASW representatives in the professional periodical \u201cSocial Work in Latvia\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All case descriptions have been anonymised and generalised. They do not constitute grounds for assessing the conduct of any individual social worker; rather, they are intended to help practitioners recognise similar situations in their own practice. References are made to the Code of Ethics of Latvian Social Workers<\/a> (Eng. version – here<\/a>) currently in force (approved on 28 May 2022). Where a case was examined under the previous Code, the relevant provisions are cited according to the revised edition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each entry consists of four parts: Situation<\/strong>, Ethically Sound Course of Action<\/strong>, Rationale<\/strong> and Source<\/strong>. Questions concerning similar situations may be submitted via the \u201cQuestions on Ethics\u201d section of the LASW website or by e-mail to etika.lsdb@gmail.com. A response is provided within 10 working days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No client information may be disclosed to third parties under any circumstances, particularly by telephone. This applies even where the social worker believes that the third party is already well informed about the client\u2019s situation. Where the client personally requests that information be disclosed, the social worker should refrain from doing so, since the client always retains the possibility of disclosing it him- or herself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> In telephone conversations with third parties, a social worker described family circumstances related to the removal of children from the family. The social worker also disclosed decisions taken by the police and other institutions, as well as the client\u2019s place of residence. The client had not been informed of this, and the social worker had not verified the identity or the authority of the persons with whom they were speaking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Before providing any information, the social worker should always ascertain who the other party is and whether that party is entitled to receive the information. Sensitive information should not be communicated by telephone or through other informal channels. The institution is advised to organise joint training on the application of confidentiality in practical situations. The Commission found a breach of the principle of confidentiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 4.5 (confidentiality and privacy) and paragraph 5.2.4 (no information may be disclosed without first informing the client and obtaining their consent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Decision of the LASW Ethics Commission on a formal submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> Clients of a social service took part in an entertainment television programme. At the clients\u2019 written request, their social workers spoke on camera about the clients\u2019 life circumstances. The programme also showed the living quarters of other clients, which provoked a negative public reaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> A client\u2019s consent does not relieve the social worker of the duty to use information responsibly. Clients themselves always have the right to speak publicly about their own lives; however, the social worker must not become an active participant in making the client\u2019s private life public. Before taking any public action, the social worker should consider how it will be perceived by members of the public who are unaware that the social worker is speaking with the client\u2019s permission. To draw attention to a social problem, professional channels should be used: publishing in professional periodicals, informing policymakers or expressing a clearly professional opinion in the media. The Commission did not establish a direct breach, but concluded that the Code had been interpreted inappropriately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 5.2.5 (confidentiality must be maintained even where the client personally requests that their information be passed on to a third party), paragraph 4.5 (responsible use of information), paragraph 5.1.2 (the standing of the profession) and paragraph 5.7.8 (communication that adversely affects the standing of the profession).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Decision of the Ethics Commission of a municipal institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where a social worker also has a family, personal or other relationship with a client, work with that client must be transferred to a colleague. Any further action must be agreed with the responsible institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> While visiting a foster family, a social worker unexpectedly encountered a minor relative living there. Casework with the foster family was immediately transferred to another social worker. The social worker now knows where the relative lives and has the family\u2019s contact details. Using this information for personal purposes would be unethical; however, both the child and the social worker have the right to maintain contact with their relatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Transferring the case to a colleague was the correct decision: a social worker does not work with a family with whom a dual relationship may arise or in which it may be difficult to give primary consideration to the client\u2019s interests. Subsequently, the Orphan\u2019s and Custody Court should be informed of the situation that has come to light and of the social worker\u2019s withdrawal from work with the family. Any further contact with the relative should be discussed with the Orphan\u2019s and Custody Court, as it represents the interests of the child. The social worker does not personally make use of this information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 4.8 (professional integrity; boundaries between personal and professional life), paragraph 5.2.1 (the client\u2019s interests take priority), paragraph 5.2.9 (avoiding dual roles), paragraph 5.1.2 (the standing of the profession) and paragraph 3.5 (integrity: acting honestly, reliably and responsibly).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Consultation provided by the LASW Ethics Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A client\u2019s choices must be respected as long as they do not endanger the life or health of the client or of others. Where such a threat exists, the social worker must inform the institutions that have the legal authority to intervene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> An older person living alone, who was no longer able to care for himself, consistently refused assistance from the social service. A social worker helped him informally, as a neighbour, outside the scope of their professional duties. The man developed pressure ulcers and was no longer able to get up, yet refused medical treatment and care. The social worker respected this decision and informed no one. Several days later, other neighbours called an ambulance, and the incident caused public outrage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Imposing assistance against a person\u2019s will would contravene the right to self-determination. However, this right takes precedence only until the situation begins to endanger the person\u2019s health and life. Once the person\u2019s condition becomes dangerous, the social worker must inform health care or social care institutions. This obligation also applies to persons who are not the social worker\u2019s clients and to situations in which the social worker provides help informally. The Commission found a breach. Institutions are advised to develop a procedural protocol for such situations, and social workers should involve medical professionals where they themselves lack knowledge of health-related matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraphs 4.1 and 4.4 (dignity and the right to self-determination, provided this does not threaten the rights of others), paragraph 3.5 (integrity; particular responsibility towards vulnerable groups, including older persons receiving care) and paragraph 5.1.2 (the standing of the profession). The Commission also referred to the rights to life and health protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Satversme) and to Standard 1.02 of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) of the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Decision of the LASW Ethics Commission on a formal submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> A social worker asks: to what extent is intervention permissible when a person is evidently behaving inappropriately and endangering themselves and those around them, but is not aware of it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Clients are the experts on their own lives, and their situation must not be judged by the social worker\u2019s own standards. The law does not grant social workers the power to take coercive measures; therefore, a social worker must not intervene coercively on their own initiative. Where a client endangers their own or others\u2019 life or health, or commits punishable acts, the police, the Orphan\u2019s and Custody Court or medical professionals must be informed. The situation should be assessed on the basis of facts rather than emotions, since heightened reactions are common in conflict. Institutions are advised to define when social workers must intervene and when they should not, and to analyse complex cases in supervision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraphs 4.4 and 5.2.7 (self-determination; helping the client to take responsibility for their own actions), paragraph 4.1 (the right to self-realisation, provided this does not interfere with the rights of others) and paragraph 5.1.3 (professional limitations). Coercive measures are provided for by law, for example, the Medical Treatment Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Interpretation by LASW representatives published in a professional periodical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When working with a family, the social worker maintains neutrality towards the adults involved and relies on facts. The child\u2019s interests constitute the independent interests of a party to the case and need not be adapted to the wishes of either parent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> For several years, the parents have been distorting facts, disregarding recommendations and perceiving home visits as a personal affront. The social worker warns that, if the parents fail to ensure the care of their children, placement of the children in a crisis centre will be considered. The parents respond by threatening to file complaints and to contact the media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> It is unethical for a social worker to threaten to exercise powers that fall outside their competence. Social workers do not have the right to determine a child\u2019s place of residence, and placement in a crisis centre is not a sanction for failing to follow recommendations. It is an exceptional measure taken in the interests of the child when the child\u2019s life or health is at risk. The social worker must understand the family\u2019s situation, assess the risks according to the criteria laid down in the regulatory framework and, where the risk is high, inform the Orphan\u2019s and Custody Court. Lying should be viewed professionally, as an indication of a lack of trust or of fear, rather than as a personal affront. The social worker continues to fulfil their professional role and informs the clients of the consequences of their actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 5.1.1 (understanding the client and the client system), paragraph 5.1.3 (professional limitations), paragraph 5.2.2 (trust), paragraph 5.2.7 (helping the client to take responsibility) and paragraph 5.2.11 (fulfilling one\u2019s role even where the client does not fulfil their obligations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Interpretation by LASW representatives published in a professional periodical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> Divorced parents have been in prolonged conflict and have also drawn their children into the dispute. The mother complained that the social worker was supporting the father\u2019s position and treating her with prejudice. The complaint was prompted by the social worker\u2019s remark about how the mother had arranged the child\u2019s consultations with a psychologist. It emerged that the social worker was working with the father\u2019s family, while another social worker was working with the mother\u2019s family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Where a social worker acts in the best interests of the child and these do not coincide with the wishes of one of the parents, this is not unethical. No breach was found, since the social worker had relied on the assessments of the psychologist and the service providers, and the case had been subject to supervision. Recommended practice in such cases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 3.1 (service; neutrality), paragraph 5.2.1 (the client\u2019s needs take priority), paragraph 5.2.5 (conditions of confidentiality between family members, including children) and paragraph 5.7.6 (basing decisions on evidence rather than assumptions). The Commission also examined the requirements of the code of ethics for municipal employees: to act fairly and to rely solely on objective and verified information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Decision of the Ethics Commission of a municipal institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Objections to the decisions of other professionals or to institutional practice must be addressed through management and established procedures, not in conversations with third parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> In telephone conversations with third parties, a social worker endorsed unverified claims that decisions taken by another institution were unlawful. The social worker also incorrectly identified the employee who had taken the decision. The complainant considered that paragraph 5.4.2 of the Code of Ethics, concerning cooperation with colleagues, had been breached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Doubts regarding the decisions of other institutions should be addressed at the level of institutional management, rather than by expressing a subjective opinion in conversations with third parties. Before passing on any information, the social worker must ensure that it is accurate. The Commission found a lack of respect for the competence of other professionals and the provision of inaccurate information. An important clarification: in the Code of Ethics, a \u201ccolleague\u201d is a co-worker within the same institution. Relations with employees of other institutions are governed by the standards of inter-institutional cooperation; consequently, no breach of paragraph 5.4.2 was found.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 5.3.1 (respecting the competence of colleagues and of professionals from other sectors, including responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided). Paragraph 5.4 (cooperation with colleagues) applies only to employees of the same institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Decision of the LASW Ethics Commission on a formal submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> A social worker observes that institutional requirements, resources or management decisions are not in the client\u2019s interests or are unethical. The institution has no procedure for resolving such situations, and there are no defined criteria for evaluating the social worker\u2019s performance and workload.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Proceed incrementally:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A social worker must not be penalised for taking such action. The social worker may request clear criteria for the evaluation of their work and documents their work carefully. Organisational procedures are determined by the head of the institution, who is also accountable for the consequences where such procedures are absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraphs 5.5.1\u20135.5.5 (standards concerning the institution and management), paragraph 4.3.4 (drawing attention to inadequate procedures and resources) and paragraph 3.1 (service). The Whistleblowing Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Interpretation by an LASW representative published in a professional periodical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the public sphere, a social worker represents the profession. Social workers do not speak publicly about their clients and never refer to them in a disparaging manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> On a social networking site, a social worker publicly made offensive remarks about a client\u2019s appearance and health. The post mentioned the client\u2019s municipality of residence, age and physical characteristics, so that other residents could identify the client. The post was picked up by the media and caused widespread public outrage. The Commission assessed the situation on its own initiative in response to the public reaction, without having received a formal submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Never post on social networks any information about a client, or any text that may harm a client or enable them to be identified. The Commission found four breaches: lack of respect for the client, damage to the working relationship with the client, breach of confidentiality, and damage to the standing of the profession. Institutions are advised to discuss collectively the requirements of the Code of Ethics concerning dignity, confidentiality and the use of information. Regular supervision on professional values is also recommended. Where a social worker is unable to reconcile the values of the profession with their personal values, a change of field of work may need to be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 4.1 (human dignity in attitude, words and actions), paragraphs 5.6.1 and 5.6.3 (social networks), paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.4 (confidentiality), paragraph 5.1.2 (the standing of the profession) and paragraph 3.5 (integrity).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Opinion of the LASW Ethics Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> The media report sensationally on a case involving clients of a social service and unjustifiably blame the social workers. The social workers ask how they can defend themselves without breaching confidentiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> When responding to the media or to institutions, speak about the target group as a whole rather than about specific individuals, for example: \u201cIn such cases, the tasks of a social worker are \u2026\u201d. Do not disclose any information that could enable a client to be identified, particularly information concerning health. Explain how professional social work differs from other forms of assistance and where its limits lie. Respond to criticism professionally rather than personally and emotionally, and strengthen public trust in the profession. Where professional competence is publicly called into question without justification, the social worker may approach LASW for advisory support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraphs 4.5 and 5.2.4 (confidentiality), paragraph 5.1.6 (explaining the values and tasks of the profession), paragraph 5.7.2 (defending the profession against unjust criticism) and paragraph 5.7.10 (the right to receive support from LASW). Personal data protection requirements concerning special categories of personal data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Interpretation by LASW representatives published in a professional periodical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where the usual course of action is not possible, the social worker chooses how to act on the basis of the values of the profession. The social worker does not discontinue support to clients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situation.<\/strong> During an emergency (for example, an epidemic), many institutions close their doors to visitors and home visits are not recommended. Social workers ask to what extent they may reduce contact with clients and at what point this amounts to a failure to fulfil their duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethically Sound Course of Action.<\/strong> Social services must not be discontinued altogether, as this would contravene the values of service and social justice. A way must be found to continue providing support, to assess the needs of new clients and to reassess the needs of existing clients in the new situation. Communication with clients should be organised creatively, bearing in mind that clients may speak less freely in remote communication. The social worker changes what can be changed \u2014 adapting premises, providing protective equipment, changing the meeting venue \u2014 and accepts the restrictions that cannot be changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rationale.<\/strong> Code of Ethics, paragraph 3.1 (service), paragraph 3.2 (social justice), paragraph 3.3 (human dignity), paragraph 3.4 (the importance of human relationships) and paragraph 4.8.1 (maintaining and developing professional competence).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source.<\/strong> Interpretation by an LASW representative published in a professional periodical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Cases 1.2, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 6.2, the source refers to the previous (2001) Code of Ethics; here, the provisions are cited according to the 2022 edition. Moors (2019) compiled situations that were not regulated by the previous Code, many of which have been incorporated into the new Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n1. Confidentiality and the Responsible Use of Information<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1.1. Disclosure of Client Information in Conversations with Third Parties<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
1.2. A Client Asks the Social Worker to Speak Publicly about Their Situation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Professional Boundaries and Dual Relationships<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2.1. In the Course of Professional Duties, a Social Worker Discovers That a Relative Is Living in a Foster Family<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. Client Self-Determination, Dignity and the Limits of Intervention<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3.1. An Older Person Living Alone Refuses Assistance and Their Condition Deteriorates<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.2. How Far May a Social Worker Intervene When a Person Appears to Pose a Danger to Themselves or Others?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. Working with Families and Conflicting Parties<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
4.1. A Family Fails to Cooperate, Lies and Threatens to Lodge Complaints<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4.2. A Divorced Parent Accuses the Social Worker of Siding with the Other Parent<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
5. Cooperation with Colleagues, Other Institutions and Management<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
5.1. In a Conversation with a Third Party, a Social Worker Criticises the Decisions of Another Institution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
5.2. Institutional Practice or Management Decisions Conflict with the Client\u2019s Interests<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
6. The Public Sphere, the Media and Social Networks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
6.1. A Disparaging Social Media Post about a Client<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
6.2. The Media Criticise Social Workers without Justification<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
7. Professional Responsibility in Non-Standard Situations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
7.1. Direct Contact with Clients Is Restricted during an Emergency<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Sources<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n