Ethical behavior is crucial to helping professions, as it allows avoiding unwanted consequences and enhances the quality of care or support provided. As noted by Reamer (2006), “Ethical standards are created to help professionals identify ethical issues in practice and provide guidelines to determine what is ethically acceptable” (p. 1). Corey, Corey, Corey, and Callanan (2014), on the other hand, state that ethical codes and standards generally emphasize the principles of competence, privacy, confidentiality, as well as responsibility. Making ethical decisions also helps avoid discrimination, harm, and exploitation, thus promoting a genuine approach to client welfare and professional integrity (Corey et al., 2014). This paper will review the two cases provided and establish a preferable ethical course of action. Case 1 The first case highlights the importance of promoting the client’s welfare and maintaining professional integrity. Joan’s decision to continue seeing Ms. Smith is controversial, as family therapy is out of her scope of practice. Ensuring that the social worker acts within his scope of competence are among the vital ethical principles supported by various ethical standards, including the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics and the NASW Code of Ethics (Corey et al., 2014). However, to judge whether or not Joan’s decision can be considered ethical, it is crucial to evaluate the context of her work. As noted in the case, there are no family therapists in the area where Joan works, which makes it impossible for her to refer Ms. Smith to a person who is more qualified and experienced in family conflicts. If Joan refused to see Ms. Smith, this would negatively impact the client’s family conflict, as she would have been unable to receive help. By offering to treat Ms. Smith for anxiety, Joan can help her to lower the levels of stress, which could have a positive effect on the situation in her family. Lowering levels of stress and anxiety, as well as developing healthy stress-coping mechanisms, could help the client in preventing and mediating conflicts at home, or at least reducing their effect on her mental health and well-being. As noted by Corey et al. (2014), ethical standards and codes are no written laws. Thus there may be situations where the practitioner would have to review the situation independently of the set rules and codes to determine the best course of action for the client. In this case, Joan’s decision was ethical, as it ensured that Ms. Smith would receive care that would positively contribute to her well-being. Moreover, the decision promoted the best possible outcome for the client, which also complies with consequentialist and utilitarian ethical doctrines (Reamer, 2006). However, it is important to understand that a small change in circumstances could affect the ethics behind Joan’s decision. For instance, if there were any qualified family therapists living in the area, Joan’s decision would be entirely unethical, as the client would not have received the best care for her situation. One possible alternative to Joan’s decision would be to encourage the client to seek online counseling from a qualified family therapist living in a different area. There are various communication technologies, such as Skype, that could help Ms. Smith obtain care from an appropriate professional living in another city. However, although this would allow t