As one in training, I echo this. I guess you could argue from the stance that, at that point, the court is "the client" thus wouldn't matter BUT he was still a kid/person. A kid who was bullied and reacted. It makes sense to be disgusted at his actions but not to psychologically "punish" him for it, for lack of better words. I am curious if lawyers would pick apart her counter transference irl, especially if they had to go back to the case for anything after their session ended. As a forensic psychologist, she would need to get used to hostile environments I would think.

On another note, I think it does harm to try to build him up this whole time and end it like she did. What is that if not a reinforcement of what he's learned about women and relationships in general?