I don't believe anyone is denying the logistical reality that if a practitioner is unethical, solo practice may, in some instances, provide additional cover for such behavior. The problem is in the assumption that being in a shared practice affords a layer of protection: Lauliza, had you not mentioned the dating site to your T, she would not have known, despite being in the same practice. Had your T been in a solo practice, and you had the same conversation, the result would have been as it was, regardless.

It's also not often immediately clear just what the affiliation is within a shared practice. It could be a highly regulated environment with a great deal of supervision; or it could simply be a business arrangement to share space and secretarial services among independent contractors, with no structure of supervision. The consumer really has to be proactive to find such information.

I just think it doesn't benefit anyone to find false security; it's far better to look to verifiable evidence of ethical practice before choosing a T, and to remain vigilant for behavior that feels questionable--and to then check any misgivings out with a third party.