This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) to navigate a client’s deeply held beliefs and potential distress while adhering to professional boundaries and ethical guidelines. The NTS must balance empathy with the need to avoid making unsubstantiated claims or engaging in practices that could be misconstrued as medical advice or treatment. The mind-body connection is a complex area, and misinterpretations can lead to harm or a breach of professional conduct. Careful judgment is required to ensure the client’s well-being is prioritized without overstepping the NTS’s scope of practice. The approach that represents best professional practice involves acknowledging the client’s experience and framing the mind-body connection within the NTS’s established scope of practice, focusing on supportive and educational strategies. This approach involves validating the client’s feelings and experiences without confirming or denying the specific interpretation of the “energy blockage.” The NTS would then offer to explore general principles of stress management, relaxation techniques, or mindfulness, which are within the NTS’s purview and can positively influence the mind-body connection. This aligns with ethical guidelines that emphasize providing education and support within one’s professional competence and avoiding the practice of medicine or diagnosing conditions. It respects the client’s autonomy while maintaining professional integrity. An approach that involves directly validating the client’s specific interpretation of an “energy blockage” and suggesting specific interventions to “clear” it would be professionally unacceptable. This could be construed as diagnosing or treating a medical condition, which falls outside the scope of an NTS and could violate regulations pertaining to unlicensed practice. Furthermore, it risks reinforcing potentially unfounded beliefs without a scientific or evidence-based foundation, potentially delaying appropriate medical care if a genuine health issue is present. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns outright or to suggest that their beliefs are irrational. While an NTS must operate within their scope, a dismissive attitude can damage the therapeutic relationship, cause emotional distress to the client, and fail to provide any meaningful support. Ethical practice requires respectful engagement, even when guiding a client back towards appropriate professional boundaries. Finally, an approach that involves making definitive statements about the client’s physical or emotional state based on their interpretation of an “energy blockage” would be inappropriate. This crosses the line into medical assessment and diagnosis, which is the domain of licensed healthcare professionals. An NTS should not present themselves as having the authority to interpret or treat such phenomena as if they were medical conditions. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve: 1) Active listening and empathetic acknowledgment of the client’s experience. 2) A clear assessment of the client’s statements against the NTS’s scope of practice and relevant regulations. 3) Re-framing the conversation towards areas of expertise and support that are within the NTS’s professional boundaries. 4) Clearly communicating what the NTS can and cannot do, maintaining transparency and honesty. 5) Prioritizing the client’s safety and well-being by encouraging consultation with appropriate medical professionals when necessary.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) to navigate the ethical and regulatory boundaries of providing advice on natural therapies, particularly when a client expresses interest in using them for a serious medical condition. The NTS must balance their role in promoting well-being through natural approaches with the critical responsibility of not overstepping into the domain of medical diagnosis or treatment, which is reserved for qualified medical practitioners. Careful judgment is required to ensure client safety, maintain professional integrity, and adhere to relevant guidelines. The best approach involves acknowledging the client’s interest in natural therapies while firmly and clearly directing them to consult with their primary healthcare provider for medical advice and treatment decisions. This approach prioritizes client safety by ensuring that serious medical conditions are managed by qualified medical professionals. It also upholds the NTS’s professional scope of practice, preventing them from engaging in activities that could be construed as medical advice or treatment. This aligns with ethical principles of non-maleficence (do no harm) and professional responsibility, ensuring that clients receive appropriate care for their medical needs. An incorrect approach would be to provide specific recommendations for natural therapies to manage the client’s diagnosed medical condition without the explicit involvement and approval of their doctor. This failure constitutes practicing outside the NTS’s scope, potentially leading to harm if the natural therapies interfere with prescribed medical treatments or delay appropriate medical care. It also breaches ethical guidelines by offering advice that could be interpreted as a substitute for professional medical diagnosis and treatment. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s interest in natural therapies entirely and refuse to discuss any related topics. While maintaining professional boundaries is crucial, a complete refusal to engage on the topic of natural therapies, even in a supportive and informative capacity (while still deferring medical decisions to physicians), can be perceived as unsupportive and may lead the client to seek potentially unqualified advice elsewhere. This approach fails to acknowledge the client’s holistic health interests and misses an opportunity to guide them towards safe and appropriate avenues of exploration. A further incorrect approach would be to offer general information about natural therapies without any emphasis on consulting with a medical doctor for their specific condition. While providing general education is part of an NTS’s role, failing to explicitly link this information back to the necessity of medical consultation for a diagnosed condition is a significant oversight. It implicitly suggests that the general information provided might be directly applicable to their medical situation, which is a dangerous assumption and can lead to the client making unsupervised therapeutic choices. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a clear understanding of one’s scope of practice, a commitment to client safety, and adherence to ethical guidelines. When faced with a client discussing a diagnosed medical condition, the NTS should first acknowledge the client’s concerns and then immediately pivot to emphasizing the importance of their ongoing medical care. The NTS should offer to provide general, non-medical information about natural therapies that *might* support overall well-being, but always with the caveat that any such exploration must be discussed with and approved by their physician. This tiered approach ensures that medical needs are addressed by medical professionals, while the NTS can still offer supportive, educational, and ethically sound guidance within their defined role.

This scenario presents a professional challenge for a Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) by requiring them to navigate the historical context of natural therapies while adhering to contemporary professional standards and ethical considerations. The challenge lies in balancing the acknowledgment of traditional practices with the imperative to provide evidence-informed, safe, and regulated care. Careful judgment is required to ensure that historical appreciation does not lead to the endorsement or application of practices that are now considered unsafe, ineffective, or outside the scope of professional practice. The best professional approach involves critically evaluating historical natural therapeutic practices through the lens of current scientific understanding and regulatory frameworks. This means acknowledging the historical significance and cultural context of various natural therapies, but prioritizing those that have undergone rigorous scientific validation and are recognized within the established regulatory landscape for natural health practitioners. An NTS should be able to articulate the evolution of these practices, highlighting advancements in research, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines that shape modern natural therapeutics. This approach is correct because it aligns with the professional responsibility to provide evidence-based care, uphold patient safety, and operate within the legal and ethical boundaries of their practice. It demonstrates a commitment to continuous learning and the integration of historical knowledge with contemporary best practices, ensuring that historical appreciation serves to inform, rather than compromise, current professional conduct. An incorrect approach would be to uncritically adopt or promote historical natural therapeutic practices solely based on their longevity or anecdotal evidence, without considering modern scientific validation or regulatory approval. This fails to uphold the professional duty of care, as it may expose clients to ineffective or potentially harmful treatments. Such an approach risks contravening regulatory requirements that mandate practitioners to operate within their scope of practice and to base their recommendations on sound scientific evidence. Another incorrect approach involves dismissing all historical natural therapeutic practices as irrelevant or unscientific simply because they predate modern research methodologies. While critical evaluation is necessary, this stance overlooks the potential for valuable insights and the foundational role these practices played in the development of contemporary natural health. It also fails to acknowledge that some traditional practices may indeed have merit, even if their mechanisms are not fully understood by current science, and could be integrated responsibly with appropriate caution and evidence. A further incorrect approach would be to selectively highlight historical practices that align with personal biases or commercial interests, while ignoring those that are well-supported by evidence or are regulated. This demonstrates a lack of professional integrity and a failure to prioritize client well-being and evidence-based decision-making. It can lead to misrepresentation of the field and potentially unethical promotion of unverified or unsafe modalities. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a systematic evaluation of any therapeutic practice, historical or contemporary. This includes: 1) assessing the current scientific evidence for efficacy and safety; 2) understanding the regulatory status and scope of practice for that modality; 3) considering the ethical implications for client care; and 4) integrating historical context where relevant, but always with a critical and evidence-informed perspective. Professionals must prioritize client safety and well-being above all else, ensuring that their practice is grounded in robust evidence and adheres to all applicable regulations and ethical codes.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) to navigate the evolving landscape of natural therapies, distinguishing between established practices and emerging, potentially unsubstantiated claims. Careful judgment is required to ensure client safety, maintain professional integrity, and adhere to regulatory expectations regarding scope of practice. The best professional practice involves a rigorous, evidence-based approach to defining and applying natural therapies. This means prioritizing modalities with a demonstrable track record of safety and efficacy, supported by scientific research and recognized by relevant professional bodies. It necessitates a commitment to continuous learning and critical evaluation of new information, ensuring that any therapeutic intervention offered falls within the NTS’s competence and is aligned with established professional standards and ethical guidelines. This approach safeguards clients from unproven or potentially harmful treatments and upholds the credibility of the natural therapy profession. An incorrect approach involves uncritically accepting all claims of natural therapies, regardless of supporting evidence. This can lead to offering treatments that are not only ineffective but potentially harmful, violating the ethical duty of care and potentially contravening regulations that mandate practitioners operate within their scope of competence and provide evidence-informed care. Another incorrect approach is to limit the scope of practice to only the most widely recognized therapies, thereby neglecting potentially beneficial but less common modalities that may have emerging evidence. While caution is warranted, an overly restrictive approach can hinder professional development and limit client access to a broader range of appropriate natural health solutions. A further incorrect approach is to rely solely on anecdotal evidence or personal testimonials without seeking objective, scientific validation. While client experiences are valuable, they do not substitute for robust research and can lead to the promotion of therapies lacking a solid foundation, posing risks to client well-being and professional reputation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the client’s needs and then critically assessing available therapeutic options. This involves researching the evidence base for each modality, considering its safety profile, potential contraindications, and alignment with the NTS’s training and expertise. Adherence to professional codes of conduct and relevant regulatory guidelines, which often emphasize evidence-informed practice and client safety, is paramount. Continuous professional development and engagement with the scientific literature are essential for maintaining competence and making informed therapeutic decisions.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) to balance client autonomy with the ethical imperative to provide safe and effective recommendations. The NTS must navigate the client’s expressed preferences while ensuring that the proposed holistic health plan aligns with established principles of wellness and does not inadvertently promote ineffective or potentially harmful practices, even if not explicitly illegal. Careful judgment is required to avoid overstepping professional boundaries or making unsubstantiated claims. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment that integrates the client’s stated goals and preferences with evidence-informed holistic health principles. This includes understanding the client’s lifestyle, beliefs, and any existing health conditions. The NTS should then collaboratively develop a personalized plan that incorporates a variety of modalities, such as nutrition, stress management techniques, physical activity, and potentially complementary therapies, all while clearly explaining the rationale behind each recommendation and managing client expectations regarding outcomes. This approach respects client autonomy by involving them in the decision-making process and adheres to ethical guidelines that emphasize client well-being, informed consent, and the provision of evidence-based advice within the scope of practice for an NTS. It prioritizes a balanced and integrated approach to health, recognizing that true wellness encompasses multiple dimensions. An approach that solely focuses on the client’s stated desire for a single, unverified “miracle” supplement, without a broader assessment or consideration of other wellness pillars, is professionally unacceptable. This fails to uphold the NTS’s responsibility to provide holistic guidance and could lead to the client neglecting other crucial aspects of their health or investing in potentially ineffective products. It bypasses the ethical obligation to offer comprehensive, evidence-informed advice and could be seen as enabling a potentially unhealthy fixation. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to dismiss the client’s interest in the specific supplement outright without exploring the underlying reasons for their interest or offering alternative, evidence-based options. While the NTS may have reservations about the supplement, a complete dismissal can alienate the client and hinder the development of a trusting therapeutic relationship. Ethical practice requires open communication and a willingness to understand the client’s perspective, even when guiding them towards more appropriate recommendations. Finally, an approach that involves recommending a complex regimen of unproven or experimental therapies without clear scientific backing or a thorough understanding of their potential interactions or side effects is also professionally unsound. This risks not only the client’s well-being but also the NTS’s professional integrity and could violate ethical standards related to responsible practice and the avoidance of harm. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathetic understanding of the client’s needs and desires. This is followed by a thorough, individualized assessment that considers all relevant health factors. Recommendations should then be developed collaboratively, grounded in evidence-informed principles of holistic health, and clearly communicated with managed expectations. Ethical considerations, including client autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and professional competence, should guide every step of the process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) to balance client autonomy and informed consent with the ethical imperative to provide accurate and safe information. The client’s pre-existing beliefs, while potentially misinformed, must be respected, but the NTS also has a duty to guide them towards evidence-based understanding to ensure their well-being and prevent potential harm from ineffective or contraindicated treatments. The NTS must navigate this delicate balance without being dismissive or overly authoritative. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive and empathetic approach. This entails first actively listening to the client’s understanding of their condition and the proposed therapeutic interventions, acknowledging their concerns, and then gently introducing evidence-based information about the circulatory and nervous systems’ roles in their specific health issue. This approach prioritizes building trust and rapport, ensuring the client feels heard and respected. By explaining the physiological mechanisms in a clear, accessible manner, the NTS empowers the client to make informed decisions based on accurate knowledge, aligning with the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. This method respects client autonomy while fulfilling the NTS’s responsibility to educate and guide. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately dismissing the client’s understanding and forcefully presenting scientific data without acknowledging their perspective. This can alienate the client, erode trust, and lead them to resist the information, potentially causing them to seek less reputable sources. It fails to uphold the ethical principle of respect for persons and can be perceived as patronizing. Another incorrect approach is to simply agree with the client’s potentially inaccurate beliefs to avoid conflict. This is ethically unsound as it violates the duty of care and the principle of non-maleficence. By not correcting misinformation, the NTS risks the client pursuing ineffective or harmful therapies, thereby failing to protect their well-being. This approach prioritizes superficial harmony over genuine client welfare. A third incorrect approach is to provide overly technical and complex physiological explanations that are beyond the client’s comprehension. While factually correct, this approach fails to communicate effectively and can overwhelm or confuse the client, hindering their ability to understand and apply the information. It demonstrates a lack of consideration for the client’s learning needs and can be counterproductive to achieving informed consent. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a client-centered communication model. This involves active listening, empathy, and tailoring information to the client’s level of understanding. When addressing potential misinformation, the process should be gradual and supportive, focusing on building a shared understanding rather than imposing one’s own views. The NTS should always prioritize the client’s safety and well-being, which necessitates providing accurate, evidence-based information in a way that fosters informed decision-making and respects the client’s autonomy.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) must navigate the complex landscape of dietary supplements, balancing potential client benefits with significant regulatory and ethical considerations. The NTS is tasked with providing evidence-based recommendations while avoiding unsubstantiated claims and ensuring client safety, which requires a deep understanding of the regulatory environment governing these products. The best approach involves a thorough review of the scientific literature and regulatory guidelines pertaining to the specific dietary supplement in question. This includes consulting peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate efficacy and safety, as well as understanding the claims permitted by regulatory bodies. For example, in the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates dietary supplements under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). This framework allows manufacturers to make certain types of claims (e.g., structure/function claims) but prohibits claims of disease treatment or prevention. An NTS must adhere to these regulations, ensuring that any advice provided is grounded in scientific evidence and aligns with permissible claims, thereby protecting the client from misinformation and potential harm. This approach prioritizes client well-being and regulatory compliance. An incorrect approach would be to recommend a dietary supplement based solely on anecdotal evidence or marketing materials. This fails to meet the professional standard of care and violates regulatory principles. For instance, recommending a supplement based on a testimonial or a manufacturer’s unsubstantiated claim about curing a specific ailment would be a direct contravention of regulations that prohibit disease claims for dietary supplements. Such an action could mislead the client, potentially leading them to forgo conventional medical treatment and causing harm. Another incorrect approach is to recommend a supplement without verifying its ingredients or potential interactions with the client’s existing medications or health conditions. This demonstrates a disregard for client safety and a failure to exercise due diligence. Regulatory bodies emphasize the importance of understanding the composition and potential risks associated with supplements. Failing to do so can lead to adverse events, which the NTS would be ethically and potentially legally responsible for. Finally, recommending a supplement based on a competitor’s marketing claims or popular trends, without independent verification of efficacy or safety, is also professionally unacceptable. This approach prioritizes market influence over scientific integrity and client welfare. It risks promoting products that may be ineffective or even harmful, undermining the NTS’s credibility and potentially violating regulations against deceptive advertising or claims. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive assessment of the client’s needs and health status. This should be followed by rigorous research into the scientific evidence supporting any proposed supplement, with a critical evaluation of study quality and relevance. Consultation with regulatory guidelines and, where appropriate, healthcare providers is essential. The ultimate decision should always prioritize client safety, informed consent, and adherence to all applicable legal and ethical standards.

This scenario presents a professional challenge for a Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) due to the inherent complexities and potential risks associated with detoxification methods. NTS professionals must navigate a landscape where efficacy claims can be unsubstantiated, and client safety is paramount. Careful judgment is required to distinguish evidence-based practices from those that may be ineffective or even harmful, while also respecting client autonomy and informed consent. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment of the client’s individual health status, medical history, and specific detoxification goals. This includes a thorough review of scientific literature and regulatory guidelines pertaining to the proposed detoxification methods. The NTS should then engage in a detailed discussion with the client, outlining the potential benefits, risks, and evidence base for each recommended approach, ensuring the client can make an informed decision. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy. In the context of natural therapeutics, while specific regulations for “detoxification” as a standalone practice may vary, the overarching principles of providing safe, evidence-informed advice and avoiding misleading claims are universally applicable. This approach prioritizes client well-being and professional integrity by grounding recommendations in established knowledge and transparent communication. An approach that involves recommending a proprietary detoxification supplement solely based on anecdotal testimonials and marketing claims is professionally unacceptable. This fails to meet the ethical obligation to provide evidence-based advice and carries a significant risk of misrepresenting efficacy. Without scientific validation, such recommendations can lead to clients investing in ineffective products, delaying appropriate medical care, and potentially experiencing adverse effects. Furthermore, it bypasses the crucial step of individual client assessment, treating all clients as if they have identical needs and responses. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to advocate for extreme or unproven detoxification protocols, such as prolonged fasting or aggressive colon cleansing, without a robust scientific rationale or consideration for contraindications. This disregards the principle of non-maleficence, as such methods can pose serious health risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and damage to the gut microbiome. The absence of regulatory oversight for many such practices further exacerbates the risk, as they may not have undergone any safety or efficacy testing. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on the client’s perceived desire for detoxification without critically evaluating the scientific basis or potential harms of the requested methods is also problematic. While client preferences are important, an NTS has a professional responsibility to guide clients towards safe and effective interventions. Blindly following a client’s request for a potentially harmful or unproven method, without offering evidence-based alternatives or explaining the risks, constitutes a failure in professional duty of care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough client assessment, followed by a critical evaluation of available scientific evidence and regulatory guidance for any proposed intervention. Transparency with the client regarding the evidence base, potential risks, and benefits is essential. When faced with requests for unproven or potentially harmful methods, the professional’s duty is to educate the client, offer evidence-based alternatives, and decline to provide services that fall outside the scope of safe and ethical practice.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Natural Therapeutic Specialist (NTS) to balance client autonomy and informed consent with the ethical imperative to provide safe and evidence-informed recommendations. The NTS must navigate the potential for a client to pursue unproven or potentially harmful “natural” remedies without adequate understanding of their efficacy or risks, while also respecting the client’s right to make their own health decisions. Careful judgment is required to empower the client with accurate information without being prescriptive or dismissive of their preferences. The best professional approach involves a collaborative and educational strategy. This entails thoroughly discussing the client’s stated interest in specific natural stress management techniques, such as adaptogenic herbs or specific meditation practices, and then providing them with comprehensive, evidence-based information regarding their potential benefits, limitations, and any known risks or contraindications. This includes explaining the current scientific understanding, the quality of available research, and any potential interactions with other treatments the client may be using. The NTS should then work with the client to integrate these techniques into a broader, holistic stress management plan that also incorporates established, evidence-based lifestyle modifications like sleep hygiene, nutrition, and physical activity. This approach is correct because it upholds the principles of informed consent and client empowerment, ensuring the client can make decisions based on accurate and balanced information. It aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize client well-being and the provision of evidence-based guidance, while respecting the client’s agency in their healthcare journey. An incorrect approach would be to immediately dismiss the client’s interest in specific natural techniques without providing any context or alternative information. This fails to respect the client’s autonomy and may lead them to seek information from less reliable sources, potentially resulting in the adoption of ineffective or harmful practices. Another incorrect approach is to enthusiastically endorse unproven natural remedies without disclosing the lack of robust scientific evidence or potential risks. This violates the ethical duty to provide accurate information and could lead to the client foregoing or delaying more effective, evidence-based interventions, thereby compromising their health outcomes. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on prescribing a single natural remedy without considering the client’s overall lifestyle or other contributing factors to their stress is also professionally unsound. This narrow focus neglects the holistic nature of stress management and may not address the root causes of the client’s distress. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client-centered care, evidence-based practice, and ethical conduct. This involves active listening to understand the client’s needs and preferences, followed by a thorough assessment of their situation. The professional then provides clear, unbiased information about all relevant options, including their potential benefits and risks, drawing from the best available scientific evidence. Collaboration with the client to develop a personalized, holistic plan that respects their choices and promotes their well-being is paramount.

The risk matrix shows a moderate likelihood of client dissatisfaction due to a perceived lack of progress, coupled with a high potential impact on the practitioner’s reputation and client retention. This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves balancing a client’s subjective experience of their treatment with the objective assessment of therapeutic outcomes, all while upholding professional standards and maintaining client trust. Careful judgment is required to navigate the client’s emotional state and expectations without compromising ethical obligations or the integrity of the therapeutic process. The best approach involves transparent and empathetic communication. This means actively listening to the client’s concerns, validating their feelings, and then clearly and respectfully explaining the therapeutic process, including the typical timeline for observable changes and the rationale behind the current treatment plan. It also involves collaboratively reviewing the client’s progress against agreed-upon goals, acknowledging any areas where progress may be slower than anticipated, and exploring potential adjustments to the plan in consultation with the client. This approach aligns with ethical principles of informed consent, client autonomy, and professional integrity, as it fosters a collaborative therapeutic relationship built on honesty and mutual respect. It also adheres to professional guidelines that emphasize clear communication and client education regarding treatment expectations and outcomes. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns outright or to become defensive. This fails to acknowledge the client’s subjective experience and can erode trust, potentially leading to a breakdown in the therapeutic relationship. Ethically, this demonstrates a lack of empathy and respect for the client’s perspective. Another incorrect approach would be to make unsubstantiated promises of rapid improvement or to agree to significant, potentially inappropriate, changes to the treatment plan solely to appease the client, without a sound clinical basis. This violates the principle of providing evidence-based and appropriate care and could lead to ineffective treatment or harm. It also misrepresents the capabilities of the therapy and the practitioner. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes active listening and empathetic validation of client concerns. Following this, they should engage in clear, honest, and evidence-informed communication about the therapeutic process, expected outcomes, and any limitations. This framework encourages a collaborative approach where client input is valued, but therapeutic decisions remain grounded in professional expertise and ethical considerations. When faced with client dissatisfaction, professionals should assess the situation by considering the client’s perspective, the therapeutic goals, and the evidence supporting the current treatment. They should then communicate their assessment and proposed next steps transparently, seeking client agreement and ensuring that all actions are in the client’s best interest and align with professional standards.