Ms Schubert was engaged by the complainant, "Ms S", and her then-partner "Mr E" in October 2012 to counsel them separately, and together for personal relationship issues.
During five months in 2012 and 2013, "a large volume of email and text communication sent and received displayed an unnecessary personal communication between the practitioner and her two clients at a time when both clients were in treatment or had only just finished being in treatment", according to the charges, which the tribunal ruled were established against Ms Schubert.
Ms Schubert's inviting Ms S to attend a local concert with her and other friends, hiring Ms S' holiday home and giving Ms S a pair of secondhand lampshades were "comparatively less serious incidents", the tribunal said.
More serious, and amounting to negligence and malpractice, were accepting an invitation for lunch at Mr E's home; swimming with him at a local beach afterwards; later, following Ms S' complaint, texting Mr E to ask him to persuade Ms S to withdraw the complaint; and, later again, visiting Mr E at home, drinking wine with him, and discussing Ms S' personal health information without her consent.
Last December, when the tribunal issued its guilty finding, Ms Schubert texted Ms S to say it would be a "hollow victory", that she would be subject to the "law of karma", and to claim that Ms S had lied to the tribunal.
"This understandably caused further distress to the complainant," the tribunal said. It was an "extremely inappropriate" message for a registered health practitioner to send to a former client and "appears to show an ongoing lack of insight and remorse".
"We remain concerned that the practitioner is at some risk that she will re-offend if she does not accept the need for maintaining appropriate boundaries with clients," said the tribunal, and this had led to its imposition of resumption-of-practice conditions.
But the tribunal also stated that Ms Schubert had, by the time of the penalty decision last month, expressed "some acknowledgement, in hindsight, of the misconduct".
The tribunal noted Ms Schubert appeared to have had a degree of vulnerability at the time the misconduct occurred, having only recently shifted to a new city, where Ms S and Mr E were her first clients.