Kenna Says: Someone who devotes their life to harming vulnerable adults is a disgusting human

James Kaucher of Gust Law

The following is my account and opinion, based on my direct experience.

James Kaucher is a senior partner at Gust Law in Arizona. According to publicly available information, his legal practice includes representing medical institutions and behavioral health organizations in cases where the harmed party is identified as a vulnerable adult. He appears to take professional pride in this work. While I personally find this deeply troubling, that judgment is my opinion.

Mr. Kaucher has been retained by The Guidance Center in Flagstaff, Arizona, or its insurer, to defend my former therapist and to respond to complaints and legal action I have initiated against The Guidance Center. Mr. Kaucher appeared at a licensing board hearing to represent my former therapist. Prior to the hearing, the board’s disposition had already been determined: the complaint was dismissed with a letter of concern.

Both my former therapist and I were given the opportunity to address the board. I chose to speak on my own behalf. My former therapist did not speak directly; she was represented by Mr. Kaucher. In my statement, I addressed trauma-informed care, the impact of my former therapist’s treatment on me, and broader systemic failures in behavioral health care. In response, Mr. Kaucher began discussing aspects of my personal history that had been disclosed during my therapy, framing them in a way that I experienced as a personal attack. My former therapist stood next to him while this occurred. I chose to leave the hearing quickly in order to protect myself.

What is significant to me is that the board’s decision had already been made. There was no apparent legal necessity for this line of argument, and I believe — though I cannot know for certain — that it may not have reflected well on those presenting it.

Mr. Kaucher publicly advertises experience representing medical institutions in cases involving vulnerable adults. I am such a person. In my opinion, choosing to engage in a personal critique of a vulnerable complainant, based on therapeutic disclosures, after a disposition had already been reached, raises serious ethical concerns in mental health legal representation.

My former therapist’s decision to allow this approach — by standing with counsel and not intervening — was her choice. As a result, disclosures I had made in trust were used in a way that I experienced as harmful and silencing. I most certainly experienced this as intimidating. (Not to confuse this with me being intimidated — because I am not.)

I believe that The Guidance Center and its representatives are willing to use information disclosed in therapy against former clients if they believe it will benefit their legal position, regardless of the personal impact. I am a survivor of severe trauma. Some elements of my history are deeply painful and were disclosed in therapy under an expectation of safety. Based on what occurred, I believe that such information may be used against me as part of an adversarial strategy. These conclusions are my own. They reflect how I experienced these events and how I now understand the risks involved in continuing to seek accountability from The Guidance Center, my former therapist, and counsel representing them — and it won’t make me stop.

In my opinion, the choice to proceed in a manner that foreseeably harmed a vulnerable complainant, after a disposition had already been reached, reflects a professional posture that I personally find disgusting.