The efforts of communication scholars to reduce the apprehension or anxiety that the person feels about communication should be undertaken after considering the ethical, legal, and practical issues such efforts involve. The ethical question is whether or not an instructor has the obligation to intrude into a central feature of a person's life, particularly when the effects are unknown. Legal issues arise when communication scholars, in the name of research, teaching, or consulting, act as therapists. Scholars run the risk of criminal suit in communication apprehension (CA) treatment by violating any one of three standards: fraud, assault, and nonconsensual working with minors. The remaining possibility for criminal liability concerns malpractice and negligence. If a consultant fails to provide the desired or advertised improvement, then the plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of evidence that such a failure was the result of malpractice or negligence and that the malpractice or negligence causes a specific demonstrable harm. The goal of CA treatment should be the establishment of some preferred and accepted procedures that benefit the clients as well as the practitioner. However, establishing professional standards for competence in training and practice seem far off. When research establishes what constitutes effective and ineffective practices the justification for training and certification is made a reality. (Contains 19 references.) (RS)