## Facts

- F.G., a parishioner at All Saints’ Episcopal Church, sought pastoral counseling from Reverend Alex MacDonell from April 1992 through late 1993.
- F.G. alleged that while counseling her, MacDonell knowingly exploited her vulnerability and induced sexual conduct with her.
- Afterward, F.G. disclosed the relationship to Reverend Fletcher Harper, MacDonell’s assistant and later successor, and sought counseling from Harper.
- F.G. alleged Harper induced her to consent to disclosure of her identity, then identified her by name in a letter to congregations and in a sermon about the matter.
- F.G. claimed Harper mischaracterized the relationship as a consensual romantic affair and implied she attempted to seduce MacDonell, causing emotional and privacy harms.
- F.G. sued MacDonell for negligent pastoral counseling, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty; and sued Harper for privacy, defamation, false light, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The trial court dismissed claims framed as negligent pastoral counseling and related theories; the Appellate Division reversed; the Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey should recognize a tort of “clergy malpractice” for negligent pastoral counseling involving sexual misconduct during counseling.
2. Whether a parishioner may sue a clergyman for breach of fiduciary duty based on sexual exploitation within a counseling relationship without requiring judicial evaluation of religious doctrine.
3. Whether tort claims against another clergyman for disclosing and characterizing the relationship in a letter and sermon may proceed when adjudicated under neutral, generally applicable tort principles.

## Decision

- The court declined to recognize a distinct cause of action for “clergy malpractice.”
- The court held F.G. stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against MacDonell based on alleged exploitation of a counseling relationship for sexual purposes.
- The court held F.G.’s claims against Harper could proceed to the extent they can be resolved using neutral principles of law (including privacy and reputational torts and fiduciary-duty theories), without entangling the court in religious doctrine or internal church governance.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with those holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Civil courts may impose liability on clergy for conduct actionable under generally applicable tort doctrines when the dispute can be resolved by neutral principles of law.
- Courts will not create clergy-specific negligence standards that require defining proper pastoral counseling or measuring clergy conduct by religious standards, due to First Amendment entanglement concerns.
- A counseling relationship between clergy and a parishioner may give rise to a secular fiduciary duty when the parishioner alleges trust, dependence, and vulnerability known to the clergyman.
- Alleged sexual exploitation within such a counseling relationship can support breach of fiduciary duty without requiring a court to evaluate religious doctrine.
- Claims such as defamation, false light, invasion of privacy, negligent misrepresentation, and emotional-distress torts may proceed against clergy when they turn on secular questions (e.g., falsity, disclosure of private facts, privilege, causation, and damages).

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected “clergy malpractice” as a separate tort but allowed the parishioner’s fiduciary-duty claim for counseling-related sexual exploitation and permitted additional claims based on disclosures and statements to proceed when adjudicable under neutral tort and fiduciary principles.


F.G. v. MacDonell, 696 A.2d 697 (N.J. 1997)