Concern for the possible legal liabilities of psychologists involved in the provision of services to the dangerous outpatient client has increased recently. The competing interests of the obligation of confidentiality towards the client and public interest in disclosure raise substantive ethical and legal issues that have not yet been explored in Australia. The matter is further complicated by epistemic problems concerning definitions of dangerousness, and accuracy in predicting future violent behaviour. Examination of American legal precedents reveals that in several states of the U.S.A. such difficulties have not precluded the imposition of legal liability on psychologists for the violent acts of their clients—thus resulting in the controversialduty to protect. Although Australian courts may be less willing to find that psychologists have a duty to protect the intended victims of their outpatient clients, it is suggested that psychologists should carefully review their practice when dealing with the dangerous clien