When religious counseling goes wrong, can clergy members be sued for malpractice? Despite numerous attempts by disgruntled congregants to hold religious leaders legally accountable, no plaintiff has yet won a clergy malpractice case in American courts—though defending against such suits has proven increasingly costly for religious institutions. Through analysis of landmark cases including Washington v. Hill (Arkansas), the Kenneth Nally case (California), and Christofferson v. Church of Scientology (Oregon), this research traces the emergence of clergy malpractice as a distinct legal challenge. Drawing from newspaper reports and periodicals, as most cases remain unreported in standard legal databases, the analysis reveals that malpractice claims typically stem from counseling activities rather than religious duties, focusing on alienation of affections, inadequate mental health guidance, and breaches of professional standards. As America's religious landscape becomes increasingly litigious, clergy malpractice represents a growing concern for religious practitioners, warranting serious consideration of professional liability insurance coverage. While specialized carriers now offer such protection to rabbinical organizations, this solution presents its own dilemma: insurance availability might inadvertently encourage more litigation against religious professionals.