Pros
Competitive compensation, strong branding, and a mission-forward public image that appeals to clinicians seeking values-aligned work. Many frontline clinicians care deeply about clients and ethical practice.
Cons
I am writing this review in good faith as a former employee and licensed clinician because I believe prospective employees deserve transparency about organizational ethics, particularly when patient safety and power dynamics are involved. During my time connected to Two Chairs, I became aware of serious allegations of professional misconduct involving a clinician in a leadership position. These concerns included documented reports of unethical boundary violations and abuse of power that had been previously raised at other institutions and, to my knowledge, formally reported to appropriate regulatory and oversight bodies, including the Department of Health. Despite the company being notified of these concerns, the clinician remained in a position of authority. From my perspective, the organization’s response reflected a troubling pattern: prioritizing reputational protection and internal risk management over transparent accountability and the duty to protect vulnerable clients and supervisees. As clinicians, we are bound by ethical codes, duty-to-warn obligations, and “do no harm” principles. When organizations excuse, minimize, or fail to appropriately investigate credible reports of misconduct—especially involving individuals with institutional power—it creates moral injury for ethical staff and raises questions about patient safety, supervision integrity, and organizational values. I also found the internal culture around speaking up to be discouraging. There appeared to be limited pathways for meaningful accountability when concerns