The issues of value conflicts are most obvious in the forensic aspects of the work, the offering of testimony, and the making of reports. These activities require that mental health professionals apply their specialized knowledge and skills to the ends of law. The forensic psychiatrist or psychologist cannot substitute personal values or personally determined clinical judgment inappropriately when the legal requirements call for a particular standard to be applied. Thus, a forensic examination should be limited to exploration of those aspects of the person's mental status and past history that are relevant to the questions asked by the court or the attorney retaining the examiner. Efforts of the persons to seek advice or comment from the examiner either on their legal problems or on possible treatment opportunities should be avoided. Similarly, numerous ethical issues arise when considering the handling of patient confidences, as illustrated by the Tarasoff decision of the California Supreme Court. Nevertheless, in the legal settings of the courts and prisons, the main obligations of the mental health professional must be to serve justice, to perform effectively in professional work, and to maintain respect for fundamental human rights within the American legal system. Charts and 55 reference notes.