Freud long ago noted the difficulty some psychotherapists have in terminating their patients, much in the same way parents have difficulty in letting their children go. The same problem can arise in supervision too, as the following case description illustrates. The psychologist supervised graduate student interns at a psychiatric hospital, typically for just one of their patients. Subsequently, when these interns eventually set up private practices, many of them joined this psychologist's group in which concern focused on problems that arose with patients and general problems arising from setting up a clinical practice. Almost al l of those who joined these groups also joined an institute that was set up by the psychologist and another colleague for the purpose of advancing professional skills by organizing meetings and workshops. The membea of the supervision groups and the institute occasionally referred patients to one another, and occasionally potential patients contacted the institute and were referred to members of the institute. Several of the members worked together occasionally as cotherapists with clients, families or groups. In addition, many of the members of the supervisory groups and the institute eventually started psychotherapy with the psychologist or the colleague. Some were in individual psychotherapy, some in group psychotherapy and some in psychotherapy for couples. A few were in nvo or all three of these treatment modalities. (The psychotherapy provided was long-term and in depth.) In this way, this psychologist (and the colleague), who had supervised the former interns for one patient each, later ran a supervisory group for them, a professional institute with them as members and had them in individual, group, and/or couples therapy. The multiplicity of roles this psychologist had with former students raises the issue of boundary violations. Did the many roles conflict, and could a psychologist function in all of these roles with his students/ clients/colleagues? A legal action based in part on whether these multiple roles constituted a clear breach of ethical rules was settled out of court before a decision could be handed down. In some respects, the multiplicity of roles included many that Sigmund Freud had with his first disciples. But Freud functioned many years ago before ethics for those conducting psychotherapy had been discussed. Furthermore, the present psychologist involved was barely known outside of this group. Such a tightly-knit group of psychotherapists is rare. Even if a psychotherapist feels the need for these experiences, typically each experience is sought from a different source. In the present case, all experiences were bound up in the same small group with the same leader. Such a practice probably contravenes the ethical rules of the profession, and it appears to be an unhealthy arrangement.