Bill would carve limited confidentiality exception for social workers supervised by attorneys

The Committee on Judiciary heard proponent testimony on Senate Bill 128, a measure that would add narrow exceptions to certain mandated-reporting requirements for licensed social workers when they are working under the supervision of a licensed attorney in criminal, civil, domestic, juvenile matters or in prospective-client representation.

Jason Thompson of the Revisor’s Office summarized the bill: it "creates exceptions to certain mandatory reporting obligations for licensed social workers, but only when they're working under the supervision of an attorney." Thompson explained the bill pairs amendments—sections 1, 3, and 5 each add the exception to existing mandated-reporting statutes while sections 2, 4 and 6 add corresponding employer‑protections—and that section 7 addresses confidentiality for social workers and testimony obligations. He said the bill would take effect July 1 if enacted and noted it had passed the Senate 42–0.

Proponents described why they requested the change. Heather Cessna, executive director of the State Board of Indigent Defense Services, said the board asked for the bill because social workers embedded in defense teams face a conflict between mandatory reporting statutes and the confidentiality that underpins attorney‑client representation. Karen Levy, assistant director of special projects at the Board of Indigent Defense Services, and other defense and public‑defender witnesses described the “holistic” team model in which lawyers and licensed social workers share confidential information to address legal issues and the social drivers that affect cases.

"The exception allows legal teams to function properly, provide strong legal representation and advocacy by allowing social workers to do their work more fully in support of their clients," Levy said in testimony supporting the change. Several witnesses described practical limits under current law: federal public defenders and other offices rely on waivers of confidentiality or unlicensed staff as a workaround, which proponents called unsatisfactory. Tim Burdick, an assistant federal public defender, said the attorney‑client relationship "is the bedrock of my service to my clients," and argued licensed social workers are necessary to connect clients to treatment and supports that reduce recidivism.

Witnesses and committee members discussed safeguards and exceptions. Counsel and witnesses noted existing ethics rules permit disclosure when there is an imminent threat of harm; proponents said the bill’s language is intended to be narrow and to preserve attorney oversight such that social workers would remain supervised by the attorney handling the representation. Committee members asked whether the bill’s privilege language covers information obtained only from the client or more broadly from work done under the attorney's supervision; the Revisor and proponents said the draft language was intended to protect information obtained "in the course of that work under the supervision of the attorney," not strictly communications from the client.

Proponents urged passage to allow licensed social workers to practice in law‑clinic, public‑defender, and mitigation roles without forcing clients to sign waivers that undercut trust. Several witnesses emphasized sentencing mitigation, pre‑release supervision, and diversion placements as contexts where social workers’ licensed skills materially affect outcomes and public safety.

No opponents were recorded at the hearing; multiple organizations submitted written proponent testimony. The committee closed the SB 128 hearing with proponents remaining available for follow-up questions and with the Revisor’s office and proponents noting possible technical drafting clarifications.