Asexual clients anticipate negative interactions in therapy and fear being pathologized by their therapists (Flanagan & Peters, 2020; Foster & Scherrer, 2014); however, there is a dearth of information regarding the decisions therapists are making when working with asexual clients and how these decisions compare to clients with other sexual orientations. Results of previous studies provide evidence of clinicians’ sexual prejudice, including endorsement of stereotypic beliefs about gay men and bisexual people (Mohr et al., 2009; Mohr et al., 2013). The present study used a 2 (Client Presenting Problem: Depression or Sexual Trauma) by 3 (Client Sexual Orientation: Asexual; Lesbian; Heterosexual) factorial design. Licensed mental health clinicians (N =140) read vignettes accompanied by client demographics and then rated these hypothetical clients on their overall level of functioning, personal reactions to working with these clients, and feelings of warmth toward these clients. Participants completed measures of anti-asexual bias, modern homonegativity, social desirability, and demographic information. Participants rated the heterosexual, lesbian, and asexual clients similarly across assessment of functioning, personal reactions, and warmth. Clients presenting with sexual trauma were rated more warmly than clients with depression, but there were no differences in ratings of functioning or personal reactions. Participants who held greater anti-asexual bias rated asexual clients as having worse functioning than heterosexual clients, but not lesbian clients. There were no differences in warmth or personal reactions across client sexual orientation. Modern homophobia did not moderate the relationship between client sexual orientation and personal reactions, ratings of functioning, or warmth. Limitations include the use of vignettes. The potential for greater antiasexual bias to increase pathologization of asexual clients is discussed, as is the importance of developing multicultural competence. Future research should focus on understanding clinicians’ existing knowledge of asexuality and should explore how asexual men are perceived by clinicians.