This duty to assist in averting foreseeable harm to victims has been attacked by many in the mental health and legal communities. Criticisms have focused on the moral dilemma posed to the therapist who may feel he is betraying the client. It also has been argued that it is a deterrent to taking on potentially violent clients, that it burdens the therapist with the impossible task of predicting violence, that it undermines the therapeutic relationship, and that it violates confidentiality principles. However, research into the impact of the Tarasoff decision has shown that these concerns had little validity in practice. Because Tarasoff requires therapists to act to protect potential victims only where they are foreseeable or targeted, it is likely that malpractice liability will be imposed in domestic violence cases, for it is in these that the victim is most likely to be targeted and the potential for violence is greatest. With the trend toward increased prosecution in domestic violence cases, therapists are likely to find themselves with a larger pool of potentially violent clients referred by the courts for counseling. The duty imposed by the Tarasoff decision suggests that therapists should consider implementing a confidentiality policy and a therapy plan that reflects the potential dangerousness of these clients. 24 references.