Purpose: To examine the nature of ethical dilemmas most frequently reported by rehabilitation counselors in the private and public sectors and determine if significant differences exist in how practitioners experience ethical dilemmas in these two settings. Method: A mixed-methods internet-based survey design was utilized and included descriptive, qualitative, and quantitative approaches on a sample of rehabilitation counselors (N = 141) via an instrument created by the researchers. Results: The results indicate that there are clear differences between both the nature and frequency of ethical dilemmas encountered by practitioners in the private and public sectors of rehabilitation counseling. Findings indicate that there are significant differences not only in the frequency and importance each group attributes to ethical dilemmas but also in the types of ethical dilemmas experienced. Conclusion: Rehabilitation counselors in the private and public sectors practice in different environments (with varied laws, rehabilitation goals, duration of services), and minimal consideration has been given to the diversity of ethical dilemmas that these practitioners encounter in their professional roles. The inclusion of Section F in the 2010 CRCC Code of Ethics was the rehabilitation counseling field's first attempt to address the differing nature of ethical dilemmas faced by private rehabilitation counselors in their practice. Further study is warranted to examine the dynamics that underlie the ethical decision-making process as well exploring the differences between these two settings.