# Financial Advisors v Solicitors v Doctors v Accountants



## NorthDrum (28 Aug 2008)

Just thought I would put this up and see if anybody has any productive comments to make on this topic. 

Just seems to me like the general public have an inherrent distrust of Financial advisors , not to mention the comission or fees charged by financial advisers which can be seen as expensive:

-People will pay €45 to have a doctor tell them something they already know (you have a cold go to bed).

-People will pay thousands for Solicitors to do what seems like the most basic of tasks (legal letters etc).

-I have seen accountants charge hundreds by the hour for number crunching.

_* I chose these 3 as they are the most obvious professions known to us all. They are just my examples, not to be taken personally._

I havent been on this website long but from talking to brokers generally and from feedback from certain organisations (including my own experiences working in broker service environments) there seems to be an unbalanced opinion of brokers and fees in the market place in comparison to differant professional services.

I personally feel that I generally get more value for money off my rabbits vet then I do off my doctor (its not that much cheaper either)!!. But then again this shows that people can have an unbalanced view of the fees being charged for specific services.

The money we all spend on legal fees, accountant fees and doctor fees can be ridiculous but generally go unquestioned. 

I was at my Dentist the other day for under 10 mins, he looked at my teeth, did a bit of messing and said all fine, that'll be €75 thanks very much.

Im not questioning whether or not the majority of people in these professions havent worked hard to get where they are, Im just flabbergasted by the disproportionate importance (moneywise) put on certain services.

Just curious to see what the general consensus out there is.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

What's your point? 

In relation to accountancy, nobody is forced to incur accountancy fees. There is a competitive market. Anyone can trade as an accountant even if they have no qualifications, training, experience or financial resources. People can avoid accountants altogether by doing their own accounts and tax returns. On the other hand, if they want a professional service they will normally be quite happy to pay for it.


----------



## NorthDrum (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> What's your point?


 
This is the debate forum right?

Im just debating the general publics acceptance of erratic and unquantifiable fees to certain professions compared to their distrust of Financial Advisers (in relation to fees). 

Thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying.


----------



## 3CC (28 Aug 2008)

Northdrum,

Firstly, I get your point!

I agree that the fees that some professions seem to get away with charging seems to be disproportionate.

To give another example. Selling our house at the moment. Solicitor will get €1250 + outlays, estate agent will get €5000. I have to say that I value the services of the solicitor more than that of the EA but am paying a fraction of the price. (Again nothing personal - just as example)

I guess we have just gotten used to paying certain amounts for certain services. People generally check prices for services against the market rate, not using any measure of the value actually obtained. I can only assume that those who offer services with little value will be usurped by a low cost alternative when the time is right. Like the ariline industry of old...


----------



## markowitzman (28 Aug 2008)

> I was at my Dentist the other day for under 10 mins, he looked at my teeth, did a bit of messing and said all fine, that'll be €75 thanks very much.


What sort of messing?
what would a washing machine service engineer charge you for a call and some messing with your washing machine?
More than 75 euro?


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

Your prospects of generating a decent debate on this question might improve if you refrained from silly comments like



> People will pay €45 to have a doctor tell them something they already know (you have a cold go to bed).
> 
> -People will pay thousands for Solicitors to do what seems like the most basic of tasks (legal letters etc).
> 
> -I have seen accountants charge hundreds by the hour for number crunching.



People will pay a premium price for a service if (1) they have no choice; or (2) if they perceive that they are getting good value.

The lack of competition in certain sectors (notably law and medicine/dentistry) has traditionally supported a culture of high fees. This does not apply to accountancy as I have mentioned above.

In relation to financial services, both (1) and (2) apply. For example there is a limited range of banking and insurance providers in this country. On another level, financial advisors can command premium fees from customers if they can provide high "value added" solutions to financial issues affecting these customers. If their services cannot command such fees, then that is their problem.


----------



## NorthDrum (28 Aug 2008)

3CC said:


> Northdrum,
> 
> Firstly, I get your point!
> 
> ...


 
Cheers 3CC. Not trying to offend anybody or any profession in particular its just we all seem to just put our heads down and get on with things instead of actually asking where we are getting value for money.

Have you ever heard of a doctor giving 50% off to new patients or any special offers for that matter? 

Is there a database outlining solicitors fees (ie how much house registration charges should be or something to that effect)? Where is the competitiveness in this profession? Shop around, yep you might get things cheaper but at the end of the day you will probobley not understand why its cheaper or how it can be done cheaper.

If there was more transparency in these professions there might be more confidence in what you are paying for, more competitiveness in the marketplace and better deals for customers. Im sure there are other ways of improving professional services in this country but why would the governing bodies want to change anything for less gravey . . . . . .


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Have you ever heard of a doctor giving 50% off to new patients or any special offers for that matter?



My doctor has a policy of charging only €15 for repeat visits.


----------



## Sunny (28 Aug 2008)

I am sorry but I fail to see how this is a Great Financial Debate. Sounds more like letting off steam


----------



## NorthDrum (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Your prospects of generating a decent debate on this question might improve if you refrained from silly comments like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I didnt think they were silly comments, perhaps they could of been phrased better, but they were just used to make a point.

Financial Advisors can command higher fees in certain circumstances but this would be the exception rather then the rule (I dont believe that there are more bad advisers then good out there that deserve lower fees).

I think you hit the nail on the head though, it is all about culture and how we have all been brought up in a society that rewards oraganisations/professions that have a stranglehold on competitiveness and whom have it all to comfortable for the general publics good. 

Dont get me started on banks ! ! !


----------



## NorthDrum (28 Aug 2008)

Sunny said:


> I am sorry but I fail to see how this is a Great Financial Debate. Sounds more like letting off steam


 
Im putting my points across (which may differ to others) and asking what the general consensus is (initiating debate). Dont see how this is thread isnt a financial debate (considering the discussion on fees and professional services given).

Whether or not people want to debate this topic is up to them but I did say from the start that I would be interested in any productive comments. If you dont like what I said, fine, but at least have something interesting to say.

Ive seldom seen a debate worth discussing that hasnt had some sort of arguement or controversial point made.

If you guys need an opening sentance that spells it out for you on the great financial debate here you go :

"Some Professional Services in this country are not properly (or fairly) governed and are protected/motivated by their own greedy interest." Discuss


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head though, it is all about culture and how we have all been brought up in a society that rewards oraganisations/professions that have a stranglehold on competitiveness and whom have it all to comfortable for the general publics good.



But you damage your argument by including accountants in this while, as I pointed out, there are few, if any, competitiveness issues in the accountancy sector.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Aug 2008)

North Drum 

This is a rant, so it's a Letting Off Steam issue. When you have been around long enough, you will become a Frequent Poster and can post such material then.

The Great Financial Debates is for matters relating to financial services only. It is not for comparing the satisfaction you get from your rabbits with the value you get from your dentist's messing around. 

Ubi gives you good advice as a new user. While your style is entertaining, you will get a more useful response if your language is more measured.


Brendan


----------



## MrMan (28 Aug 2008)

> To give another example. Selling our house at the moment. Solicitor will get €1250 + outlays, estate agent will get €5000. I have to say that I value the services of the solicitor more than that of the EA but am paying a fraction of the price. (Again nothing personal - just as example)



Nice random figures there but that aside the Ea's job is to make you as much as possible therefore you should value his services a little more and if you don't regard it value for money negotiate or sell it yourself. 



> What sort of messing?
> what would a washing machine service engineer charge you for a call and some messing with your washing machine?
> More than 75 euro?


Would the dentist call to your home to do the work?


----------



## ClubMan (28 Aug 2008)

I'm not sure that I get your points either but...


NorthDrum said:


> I havent been on this website long but from talking to brokers generally and from feedback from certain organisations (including my own experiences working in broker service environments) there seems to be an unbalanced opinion of brokers and fees in the market place in comparison to differant professional services.


Not really sure what you mean here.


> I personally feel that I generally get more value for money off my rabbits vet then I do off my doctor


If you don't feel that you are getting value for money from your doctor then why don't you shop around and/or make the most of your time when you do visit by asking questions etc.?


> But then again this shows that people can have an unbalanced view of the fees being charged for specific services.


I don't get this point either.


> The money we all spend on legal fees, accountant fees and doctor fees can be "ridiculous" but generally go unquestioned.


You seem to be implying that it is common or the norm for such fees to be ridiculous? That seems to be a bit of a sweeping statement to make in general terms.


> I was at my Dentist the other day for under 10 mins, he looked at my teeth, did a bit of messing and said all fine, that'll be €75 thanks very much.


Did you ask him what he had done? Did you query the charge if (as it seems) you thought that it was too high or not value for money? Did you shop around for what you consider a competitive fee for the same work? 


> Im not questioning whether or not the majority of people in these professions havent worked hard to get where they are, Im just flabbergasted by the disproportionate importance (moneywise) put on certain services.


By whom? Again this seems like a meaningless generalisation.


----------



## dazza21ie (28 Aug 2008)

> Is there a database outlining solicitors fees


 
There is no database outlining solicitors fees or recommended charges as to do so would be anti-competitive and would have people like you giving out. 



> ie how much house registration charges should be or something to that effect)?


Registration charges can be easily checked on the Property Registration Authority Website.



> Where is the competitiveness in this profession?


Competition within the legal profession is more competitive now than ever. 



> Shop around, yep you might get things cheaper but at the end of the day you will probobley not understand why its cheaper or how it can be done cheaper.


It is cheaper because that particular solicitor is charging less for his time than the solicitor that quotes a dearer price. Each solicitor is free to decide how much they charge.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2008)

I think the issue is that many people do not regard financial advisors as professionals. Lawyers and doctors (and vets) require a license to practice and are subject to sanction by their regulatory body. In the case of lawyers there is a strong case to be made that since their regulatory body is also their representative body there is a conflict of interest but that’s a different matter. The bottom line is that many people are sceptical about people who claim to be “Professional” advisors. This, in my opinion, is unfair but never the less I think that it is the case.


----------



## LDFerguson (28 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> I think the issue is that many people do not regard financial advisors as professionals.


 
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head.  Financial advisors are not generally seen as professionals in the same category as some of those mentioned above and as one myself, I'd love to hear opinions as to what the wider industry could do to redress this.  (I know what I can do in my own firm to gain recognition - this is a separate issue - I'm more interested in what could the larger industry be doing.)  

I'd prefer not to hear anecdotal tales of how individuals have received poor advice or service from a financial advisor as I honestly don't think this is the kernel of the bigger issue here.  For every tale one individual relates, I can come up with another one of poor service or advice from a doctor etc.  Like any profession, there are good and bad financial advisors, doctors, solicitors etc.  



Purple said:


> Lawyers and doctors (and vets) require a license to practice and are subject to sanction by their regulatory body. In the case of lawyers there is a strong case to be made that since their regulatory body is also their representative body there is a conflict of interest but that’s a different matter.


 
This what's frustrating.  Financial advisors require at least one licence to practice, more if they want to cover different areas.  There are minimum standards of relevant education and training that have to be met.  There's ongoing training has to be done and documented.  There are strict regulations as to how the business must be conducted, with routine visits from the Financial Regulator to ensure that standards are being upheld.  The regulatory body is not a representative body.


----------



## Vanilla (28 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> In the case of lawyers there is a strong case to be made that since their regulatory body is also their representative body there is a conflict of interest but that’s a different matter.


 
Self-regulation is an old chestnut.

Can I point out that being able to make a complaint about a solicitor to their professional body is in *addition *to all recourse you have otherwise by law. 

Secondly this is the actual system:

1. You can make a complaint to the complaints section of the law society. They will assess your claim and try to sort it out with the solicitor if it is a valid claim. And don't forget that a certain percentage of complaints will come from kooks who do not have a valid complaint. If they deem it necessary they will send it on to the disciplinary tribunal.

2. Or you can go directly to the disciplinary tribunal. Which is entirely independant of the law society and is made up of 20 solicitors and 10 laypeople appointed by the president of the high court.

3. And if you're not happy with that you can go to the high court.

4. And if you're not happy with the verdict of the complaints section of the law society you can also go to the independant ombudsman. Yes, independant.

5. And you can take a negligence action against your solicitor in court just like you can with any other service provided by any other service provider.  Just most of the others don't have the other 4 possibilities above.

6. We all have to have professional indemnity insurance both while practising and now for a minimum of 6 years run off cover.

7. We have a compensation fund that all solicitors pay into every year.


So next time someone wants to reel out that old chestnut please think of the above.


----------



## ccbkd (29 Aug 2008)

Lets be Pragmatic about this rant / post - I have made up my mind years ago about all professions and services be it doctors, solicitors, dentist, golf pros, physios.. they are there to make a buck! end of story so they charge accordingly and in the case of doctors and physios the mantra usually is after you pay them "Oh I think you should come back next week for one last visit" that'll be 65 yoyos please. As for conveyancing don't get me started on this rip-off!!


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Self-regulation is an old chestnut.
> 
> Can I point out that being able to make a complaint about a solicitor to their professional body is in *addition *to all recourse you have otherwise by law.
> 
> ...


I accept all of that is valid. I was commenting only on the law society and how it is perceived.


----------



## Vanilla (29 Aug 2008)

Actually what you said was





Purple said:


> In the case of lawyers there is a strong case to be made that since their regulatory body is also their representative body there is a conflict of interest but that’s a different matter.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Actually what you said was



Fair enough. Do you accept that (recourse from other sources not withstanding), there is a potential conflict of interest what one body has a representative and a regulatory/disciplinary function? The fact that there are other checks in place and avenues for grievances (real or imagined) is a separate issue. 

My apologies for being unclear but in my first post I was commenting only in the context of how the profession/industry is perceived.


----------



## Vanilla (29 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> Fair enough. Do you accept that (recourse from other sources not withstanding), there is a potential conflict of interest what one body has a representative and a regulatory/disciplinary function? The fact that there are other checks in place and avenues for grievances (real or imagined) is a separate issue.
> 
> My apologies for being unclear but in my first post I was commenting only in the context of how the profession/industry is perceived.


 
Do you still feel, despite my other post, that the only professional regulation of solicitors is by the lawsociety, their representative body- or do you accept that in fact the disciplinary tribunal, the high court and the independant ombudsman are independant of the law society? In which case your question is hypothetical.


----------



## Sunny (29 Aug 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Do you still feel, despite my other post, that the only professional regulation of solicitors is by the lawsociety, their representative body- or do you accept that in fact the disciplinary tribunal, the high court and the independant ombudsman are independant of the law society? In which case your question is hypothetical.


 
You are right but Purple is also right. As much as it probably annoys you the public perception is that the legal profession is self regulated. And you can't blame them. The Law society themselves describe themselves as follows: 
"We are the educational, representative and *regulatory body* of the solicitors' profession in Ireland."

They don't say one of the regulatory bodies

Also taken from the Law society website on how to complain about a solicitor:

The vast majority of solicitors provide good and expert service to their clients, maintain high standards of efficiency, courtesy and conduct their practices with the utmost integrity. Regrettably, a tiny minority of solicitors do not.  The Law Society of Ireland as *the* regulatory body for solicitors can help you if you think you have a complaint about a solicitor. 

What are people supposed to think about making complaints?


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2008)

Sunny said:


> You are right but Purple is also right. As much as it probably annoys you the public perception is that the legal profession is self regulated. And you can't blame them. The Law society themselves describe themselves as follows:
> "We are the educational, representative and *regulatory body* of the solicitors' profession in Ireland."
> 
> They don't say one of the regulatory bodies
> ...


Yes, that's what I was trying to say.


----------



## Vanilla (29 Aug 2008)

Purple- I was answering the post you made, not the one you thought you made or wanted to make.

Sunny- you make a good point but as stated I wasn't answering that point. I'm trying to do my bit to alter that perception but that is an uphill battle because at the moment I fear some people want to believe that solicitors are the bad guys.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Purple- I was answering the post you made, not the one you thought you made or wanted to make.


 Fair enough.



Vanilla said:


> Sunny- you make a good point but as stated I wasn't answering that point. I'm trying to do my bit to alter that perception but that is an uphill battle because at the moment I fear some people want to believe that solicitors are the bad guys.


 I think that solicitors are no different from any other group of people. My own experience is that I like and trust my solicitor and think I get good value for money.


----------



## MrMan (29 Aug 2008)

> I fear some people want to believe that solicitors are the bad guys.



It comes down to the attitude of some and the word of mouth that ensues, I basically take with a pinch of salt what is said to me about me, that other people would consider libelous in my work. Perceptions are hard to change but i try one person at a time!


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Aug 2008)

Self-regulation of itself is not great from an "optical" point of view - its easy for cynics to rubbish it.

As an accountant I find, and the general perception amongst accountants is, that we are very heavily regulated, to the point that larger firms need a fulltime compliance guy to make sure we dont slip offside on the mountain of technical rules. Also we wish our Institutes were like the IFA fighting for our interests, not beating us over the head with more regulations.

Solicitors are just going through a bad run of luck. In my experience they are honest guys & gals - my only gripes would be more casual in that they are a bit more likely to be "up themselves" than your average accountant, particularly if you're dealing with the D4 crowd, and also a propensity to "await instructions" as opposed to mucking in and being a problem solver. These are minor things, and accountants, I included, could probably be accused of worse.

The only one case that really irked me was a recent one where a solicitor was getting his 12th remand or something ridiculous like that from the Law Society. I forget the names but one thing I remember was that he was going to settle a tax case for a client so he got the client to make a cheque out to the solicitor himself (no prizes for guessing what happened that money). Why he hadnt been shut down years ago was what I couldnt understand.

On the issue of value - from an accountancy point of view at least - clients need to find the right level of advice. If you are v price conscious and your affairs are simple then go to the lad working from his sitting room, or some student you heard of who know his way around a tax return. Dont go to a big firm and pay high fees and then ***** about it. They are geared to deal with big business and complex issues, while you think they robbed you they probably see you as a loss maker - neither of ye are necessarily wrong, ye are just mismatched.

Personally I wish charging could be more striaghforward and pricing simple so everyone always knew before they started what the fee would be -however life isnt that simple. I hate timesheets, issuing/arguing fees and collecting cash, its stressfull, but sure what you gonna do?, you gonna work for nada? get oudda here !!


----------



## quarterfloun (29 Aug 2008)

Personally I believe that private solicitors should be removed from practice. It is in their interest to charge by the hour, by the letter, by expenses etc. which essentially means that access to the law is on a basis of affordabilty. One need only look at ratemysolicitor to see many miscarriages of law and the professions tend to shut their doors to these unfortunates. Whilst there is definately some windmill chasing going on the Judiciary has a lot to answer for if 1% of the claims on the site are correct and true.

And on the subject of the courts and law makers one could ask the question why laws are so open to interpretation? Being a bit cynical I might say the more complex it is written the more fees can be written on the back of it.

Plain English, off the shelf contracts, a few law changes and ratemysolicitor would be a thing of the past.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2008)

quarterfloun said:


> Personally I believe that private solicitors should be removed from practice. It is in their interest to charge by the hour, by the letter, by expenses etc. which essentially means that access to the law is on a basis of affordabilty.



And what do you propose instead? That individuals are to be banned from attempting to enforce their legal rights, or to have these rights subject to the whims of the state as in some medieval societies?



quarterfloun said:


> And on the subject of the courts and law makers one could ask the question why laws are so open to interpretation?


ROFL


----------



## quarterfloun (31 Aug 2008)

RE your two points - A computer that looks at the facts, applies the laws, makes a decision. Abide by the decision. Easy. Could even build in a lie detector!

You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL  I really do not get it. If the law is written - say speeding - it's quite clear what the law is. It's because it is not written clear enough that allows someone to employ a solicitor to get them a lesser punishment based on said solicitors interpretation of how the law should be applied. In turn maybe said solicitor will oneday in turn write more vague laws and perpetuate the legal professions' fee generation. Were I to write software to do a job it either works or does not. So why can the same rules not apply to law writing as code writing?


----------



## Vanilla (31 Aug 2008)

quarterfloun said:


> It's because it is not written clear enough that allows someone to employ a solicitor to get them a lesser punishment based on said solicitors interpretation of how the law should be applied. In turn maybe said solicitor will oneday in turn write more vague laws and perpetuate the legal professions' fee generation. Were I to write software to do a job it either works or does not. So why can the same rules not apply to law writing as code writing?


 
You don't seem to understand the distinction between the lawmakers ( that would be the democratically elected government initially) and solicitors/barristers.

But in any case I treated your post that Ubi replied to ( he is not a solicitor BTW) as a troll.


----------



## MrMan (1 Sep 2008)

> One need only look at ratemysolicitor to see many miscarriages of law and the professions tend to shut their doors to these unfortunates.


Not a good place to be basing your argument on.


----------



## Purple (1 Sep 2008)

quarterfloun said:


> RE your two points - A computer that looks at the facts, applies the laws, makes a decision. Abide by the decision. Easy. Could even build in a lie detector!
> 
> You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL  I really do not get it. If the law is written - say speeding - it's quite clear what the law is. It's because it is not written clear enough that allows someone to employ a solicitor to get them a lesser punishment based on said solicitors interpretation of how the law should be applied. In turn maybe said solicitor will oneday in turn write more vague laws and perpetuate the legal professions' fee generation. Were I to write software to do a job it either works or does not. So why can the same rules not apply to law writing as code writing?



That's a staggeringly stupid and utterly unworkable idea.
It flies in the face of the most basic principles of justice.


----------



## Complainer (1 Sep 2008)

quarterfloun said:


> And on the subject of the courts and law makers one could ask the question why laws are so open to interpretation? Being a bit cynical I might say the more complex it is written the more fees can be written on the back of it.
> 
> Plain English, off the shelf contracts, a few law changes and ratemysolicitor would be a thing of the past.





quarterfloun said:


> RE your two points - A computer that looks at the facts, applies the laws, makes a decision. Abide by the decision. Easy. Could even build in a lie detector!
> 
> You may well ROFL but that suits your pocket. How much do you charge per ROFL  I really do not get it. If the law is written - say speeding - it's quite clear what the law is. It's because it is not written clear enough that allows someone to employ a solicitor to get them a lesser punishment based on said solicitors interpretation of how the law should be applied. In turn maybe said solicitor will oneday in turn write more vague laws and perpetuate the legal professions' fee generation. Were I to write software to do a job it either works or does not. So why can the same rules not apply to law writing as code writing?




Perhaps you could demonstrate how this simple approach to lawmaking would work by drafting a short piece of legislation covering any area that you are familiar with and sharing it with the class?


----------



## quarterfloun (1 Sep 2008)

I'd kick the whole lot of them into touch - Accountants, Lawyers, Some Doctors, we need to go back to the basics, make the rules easy enough to understand for all, not just those trained in the rules. If I know what is wrong with myself why do I need a doctor to look at me? So I can get a prescription - cost of visit €50. For What? Fifty quid so I have permission to go and spend more of my money on potions. Codswallop - thats what it is - legalised robbery and nothing short.

Opticians were up in arms over reading specs once upon a time - they cost around 70 a pair if my memory serves me - now you can get them in Tesco for a fiver. Go in, try a few pairs on - job done.

Put the whole lot in a boat and send them off to America. Then we can roll down the tax office, wad of fiftys in hand and pay the bill. Cut out the middlemen.

regarding my simple approach to law - yeah it is very naive at times but I truly do believe life does not have to be so complicated that I need a "professional" as soon as I get out of bed.


----------



## Complainer (2 Sep 2008)

quarterfloun said:


> I'd kick the whole lot of them into touch - Accountants, Lawyers, Some Doctors, we need to go back to the basics, make the rules easy enough to understand for all, not just those trained in the rules. If I know what is wrong with myself why do I need a doctor to look at me? So I can get a prescription - cost of visit €50. For What? Fifty quid so I have permission to go and spend more of my money on potions. Codswallop - thats what it is - legalised robbery and nothing short.
> 
> Opticians were up in arms over reading specs once upon a time - they cost around 70 a pair if my memory serves me - now you can get them in Tesco for a fiver. Go in, try a few pairs on - job done.
> 
> ...


I take that's a 'no' then to my suggestion that you demonstrate how workable your suggestion is by drafting a nice piece of simple legislation for the sake of example?


----------



## quarterfloun (4 Sep 2008)

Hi complainer !

Its not a no - I'm not qualified to formulate legislation but take this as an example.

Instead of a court think ATM. You recieve a summons for speeding in the post.

Wander down the ATM (no so speedily as before.......  )

Pop in your summons number and the PIN you received seperately.

Read the details - decide whether to plead guilty or not
If you plead guilty get an automatic discount of 10% for pleading guilty and you get fined from a data set. If you are on the Dole / Social / Sick / Times are hard etc. select the appropriate mitigating circumstance. Opt to pay by DD, Laser etc. Wander off down the road with a printout of the session straight to the pub so you can celebrate the fact that no old duffer in a wig is quaffing quails eggs and fine port at your expense

If you plead not guilty then select a reason from the list - if it is not there you can add it save your session, come back in a week and find your reason listed.


Easy peasy lemon squeezy 

The way I see it if you want to make it hard for yourself it should cost a shed load more than if you take it on the chin - be a a man about it.

If you did the crime and there were extenuating circumstances they can all have weightings to applied to the final fine.


----------



## bamboozle (4 Sep 2008)

Purple said:


> I think the issue is that many people do not regard financial advisors as professionals. Lawyers and doctors (and vets) require a license to practice and are subject to sanction by their regulatory body. In the case of lawyers there is a strong case to be made that since their regulatory body is also their representative body there is a conflict of interest but that’s a different matter. The bottom line is that many people are sceptical about people who claim to be “Professional” advisors. This, in my opinion, is unfair but never the less I think that it is the case.


 

2 points to make,firstly, to qualify as a doctor, accountant, vet, dentist etc, requies years of formal education and in many cases sitting professional exams for a number of years to receive the qualifications while also doing a certain amount of time in an apprenticeship.
Secondly any of the above professions can suffer both professionally and financially from any mistakes made, eg a case last week of one of the 'big 4 auditors who received a fee of over 800k for doing the audit of a mineral water firm belonging to Greencore, failed to pick up management fraud during their audit and as such were replaced as auditors and had the story exposed in the media. if a doctor made a medical error his insurance will shoot thru the roof, his reputation will be in tatters and he may even have his license revoked.


My point being when you're paying large amounts for any of the above professional services you expect proper service or will go elsewhere & failure by the profession to provide to the standard expected will be to their own loss.

Unfortunately when dealing with mortgage brokers & estate agents firstly there are no professional examination requirements, secondly there are no University Degree requirements (or at least i know of guys with no degree qualifications working in this industry), all you have to do is go to court pay your license fee and have a Garda vet for you. while also there seems to be very weak self regulation for these bodies while government are still dilly dallying over introducing proper Bills regarding these industries.

just to wander off topic, i was recently quoted 85 to get a lawnmower service!! made doctor's visits seem like a bargain!


----------



## MrMan (5 Sep 2008)

> Unfortunately when dealing with mortgage brokers & estate agents firstly there are no professional examination requirements, secondly there are no University Degree requirements (or at least i know of guys with no degree qualifications working in this industry), all you have to do is go to court pay your license fee and have a Garda vet for you



Well you can choose an EA that has a degree in his field but would that make you trust him anymore? I don't see how your point is being proved by pointing to failings (perceived) in other professions.


----------



## S.L.F (5 Sep 2008)

bamboozle said:


> just to wander off topic, i was recently quoted 85 to get a lawnmower service!! made doctor's visits seem like a bargain!



I don't think your example of the difference between a doctors and a lawn mower service is a good one.

Usually there is a queue outside a doctors surgery so you'd be lucky if a doctor spends 10 to 15 mins looking at you whereas someone could spend a few hours fixing what needs doing to a lawn mower.


----------



## Bronte (5 Sep 2008)

Vanilla said:


> You don't seem to understand the distinction between the lawmakers ( that would be the democratically elected government initially) and solicitors/barristers.
> 
> quote]  Ah yes they make the laws but who drafts them?  Vanilla, if I didn't have such a good solicitor I'd love to hire you or any one of the one's on AAM, that's if you'd accept me as a client of course.  You have to not always defend your own profession, like all professions there are cowboys and boy have there been some cowboys recently.  You also have to admit that to take on a solicitor for an ordinary joe soap is an enormous task, recently on AAM we debated the fact that none of you wanted to take on a client who had a fee dispute with a solicitor and it was a relatively trivial matter.  Address that problem in Ireland and you're a long way to the legal profession being seen in better light.     OP, financial advisors always have the problem of picking a particular product because it gives them greater commission than giving a client good advice and years down the road people discover the product was not right for them (equitable mortgages, critical illness cover, long term savings products for people in their 70's spring to mind).


----------



## Vanilla (5 Sep 2008)

Bronte said:


> Ah yes they make the laws but who drafts them?


 
Er, not solicitors? In most cases civil servants with input from the law reform commission and various other interested groups.

I'm not sure what thread you're referring to in relation to a fee dispute.


----------



## bamboozle (5 Sep 2008)

MrMan said:


> Well you can choose an EA that has a degree in his field but would that make you trust him anymore? I don't see how your point is being proved by pointing to failings (perceived) in other professions.


 



I'm not trying to knock EA's or mortgage brokers but going back to the Original Post in which the OP's comments related to what justification there was for high professional fees for these professions, i was merely stating that a lot of the professions mentioned by the OP had strict entrance requirements put in place to ensure that people who pay for such services receive exactly that -a professional service.


----------



## LDFerguson (5 Sep 2008)

bamboozle said:


> Unfortunately when dealing with mortgage brokers & estate agents firstly there are no professional examination requirements,


 
Not true at all. To become a mortgage (or life assurance) broker these days, you have to sit the QFA exams and have to do at least 60 hours of CPD training every three years. 

In addition, you also have to have PI insurance as a requirement. And your regulator (the Financial Regulator) is not a representative body.  

You have to run your business in accordance with strict guidelines and you can expect to get routine audit visits from the regulator to make sure you're keeping to them.


----------



## Complainer (5 Sep 2008)

quarterfloun said:


> Its not a no - I'm not qualified to formulate legislation


But you are qualified to define the process for formulating legislation? Seems a bit strange?



quarterfloun said:


> take this as an example.
> 
> Instead of a court think ATM. You recieve a summons for speeding in the post.
> 
> ...


You are joking - right? First of all, this has almost nothing to do with writing legislation. Secondly, much of this process is already in place (though not using an ATM admitedly). When I got a speeding fine recently, I had the choice of paying up by post onto my credit card and taking 2 points ('being a man' in your terms) or going to court and risking 4 points. While there might be a minor advantage in shifting this process online , or even to an ATM, that isn't a fundamental shift in the requirement for professional advisors. 

Your proposal for 'simple' laws doesn't stand up. Legislation needs to cover most scenarios and possibilities. The more general that legislation is (as you seem to want), the more scope that the lawyers and the judges will have for argueing.


----------



## quarterfloun (7 Sep 2008)

course I'm joking but I'd still rid the country of these so called professionals that make a living interpeting legislation that colleagues ot theirs drafted in the first place. I took the time once to go to court to see what court was like. I near fell asleep with the pace the judge was moving at and a real belter - when the defendants solicitor was asked for some report he did not have it and the whole load of freeloaders had to come back another day because of the incompetence of this eejit. As for tribunals......


----------



## Bronte (8 Sep 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Er, not solicitors? In most cases civil servants with input from the law reform commission and various other interested groups.
> 
> I'm not sure what thread you're referring to in relation to a fee dispute.


 I thought the people who wrote the laws while they are civil servants are legally educated, if I'm wrong I retract my statement.  The thread was about a client who was billed in error more than six years later, I can't do links so I cannot attach it here.  In relation to the points about education/training, this doesn't necessarily make a better professional, in fact it can be quite the opposite, I'm met plenty of trained professionals who were fantastic crooks and vice a versa they were just more slick with it


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Sep 2008)

> I thought the people who wrote the laws while they are civil servants are legally educated



Well I most certainly hope they are. I would be alarmed if the State is relying on amateurs to write the laws of the land.

I still don't see your logic in conflating solicitors with State legislators on the sole basis that they received similar training.


> In relation to the points about education/training, this doesn't necessarily make a better professional, in fact it can be quite the opposite, I'm met plenty of trained professionals who were fantastic crooks and vice a versa they were just more slick with it



With respect, that's codswallop. Anyone who is uneducated/untrained in tax or law or medicine, and who claims to be a professional expert in those areas, is a charlatan. 

On the other hand, just because someone is trained or educated does not necessarily mean that they are honest. That goes for all walks of life.


----------



## QED (17 Sep 2008)

I would like some solicitors to let me know how they can go to court and try to find a way to ensure that a drunk driver, rapist, murderer etc. off their crime?

Solicitors (the law profession) are highly educated, intelligent men and women but I cannot understand how they can do some parts of their work.

The 'innocent until proven guilty' line will probably be wheeled out but everyone knows some cases (both major and minor) where some obviously guilty person got off on a technicality. - Does this make the defending solictors feel proud?


----------



## mf1 (17 Sep 2008)

QED

If you are ever in the unfortunate position of being unjustly accused of a serious crime which the world and his wife believe you are guilty of, you will be very relieved to have a lawyer seeking to defend you and asking that the State prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. 

It is for a Judge or/and Jury to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused  based on the evidence presented to the Court. It is not for the man in the street to decide on guilt - unless they are on the jury. 

mf


----------



## Caveat (17 Sep 2008)

QED, Their achievement is their knowledge of the law and exploiting the weaknesses of the law on occasion, whoever they are defending. 

Whatever the offender may be or whatever he/she may have done is not always relevant - if correct arrest or search procedures were not followed for example, I think the burden of 'injustice' should lie with those authorities rather than any solicitor/barrister.

The law is the law is the law.


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Sep 2008)

QED said:


> I would like some solicitors to let me know how they can go to court and try to find a way to ensure that a drunk driver, rapist, murderer etc. off their crime?



Everyone is entitled to defend themselves in a court of law, and retain appropriate expertise to that end. The alternative is either a 'kangaroo court' system or a succession of miscarriage of justice cases where innocents get jailed (or worse) for crimes they did not do. Which would you prefer?


----------



## Vanilla (17 Sep 2008)

The system of law ensures that everyone has an opportunity to a fair trial. Part of that necessitates that where a crime is serious enough to warrant it, every citizen is entitled to legal representation, provided by the state where they cannot afford to pay for it themselves. Only when someone has had a fair trial can they be judged innocent or guilty. That is not for a solicitor or barrister to decide.


----------



## QED (17 Sep 2008)

I have great respect for the legal profession and the work they do 99% of the time. I am not one of these people who are uniformally against 'The System'. However, I sometimes find myself shaking my head when I hear some of the cases.

e.g. 

What about a case where there is a drugs 'bust' and a large quantity of illegal drugs are found. There is no question that the people present were involved in dealing but a lawyer (doing their chosen job very well) finds a slight error in the procedure used to get the search warrant.

My point is that I don't know why a lawyer would choose to defend these people?


----------



## rabbit (17 Sep 2008)

greed and money


----------



## LDFerguson (17 Sep 2008)

...or a belief that for the system to work properly, it requires people to operate all parts of it, not just the nice ones.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2008)

People tend to forget how and why out criminal justice system evolved to place such a high value on the presumption of innocence. While often frustrating and sometimes seeming to go against notions of natural justice what we have now is better than anything that preceded it. 
An independent Judiciary is just as important as democracy since one cannot last without the other. The same holds true for a free press.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Sep 2008)

Justice you will receive in the afterlife, in this world we have The Law.

Thats an approximate quote from someone famous (saw it in the intro to a book I started reading a while back) - vague statements I know. 

But the point is, dont expect too much from the law, its there for our good by and large, but its too expensive for the common man so is skewed towards the rich for that reason, its full of frustrations and delays etc. However its better than the lynch mob mentality, so we have to suffer along with it and try to repair and refine it as we go.

If we lower our expectations of justice systems we'll gain a more realistic viewpoint. Things that bug me - double jeopardy - if there's new evidence then try them again, and again, and again if we find out more relevant facts each time.


----------



## Vanilla (17 Sep 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> Things that bug me - double jeopardy - if there's new evidence then try them again, and again, and again if we find out more relevant facts each time.


 
As with most aspects of common law there is a reason behind it which people only fully appreciate when it applies to themselves or a family member. How would you feel if you were being tried over and over again for one crime?


----------



## Complainer (18 Sep 2008)

QED said:


> What about a case where there is a drugs 'bust' and a large quantity of illegal drugs are found. There is no question that the people present were involved in dealing but a lawyer (doing their chosen job very well) finds a slight error in the procedure used to get the search warrant.


I think you've been watching too much 'Law and Order'! When was the last time this happened in Ireland?


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2008)

But it is a valid point; what about a search warrant being out of date when a computer full of child porn is found?


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Sep 2008)

Purple said:


> But it is a valid point; what about a search warrant being out of date when a computer full of child porn is found?



Well if you allow the police to treat legal procedures as optional (in this or any other country) you know what happens next...


----------



## Caveat (18 Sep 2008)

Don't forget as well that those who oppose 'getting off on technicalities' may benefit from this themselves at some time.  It can work both ways.

What if, for example, you were innocent and being tried for a serious crime but were very convincingly and expertly framed for something?  'Loopholes' would then be a welcome light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Betsy Og (18 Sep 2008)

Vanilla said:


> As with most aspects of common law there is a reason behind it which people only fully appreciate when it applies to themselves or a family member. How would you feel if you were being tried over and over again for one crime?


 
(I suppose we're off topic vis a vis the original subject but this is interesting and no-one seems to mind).

Well of course its a question of balance, you wouldnt re-open every shoplifting trial, but if it was serious enough then why not? At least isnt it better to have the option open than let some fiend off when it subsequently comes to light that they were guilty (or to be pc about it - that there a strong possibility that a jury would find them guilty in light of the new evidence).

Maybe it links with the other point often raised about the alleged law breakers allegedly having the balance too much in their favour as opposed to victims. How would you or your family feel if a rapist or murderer got off in court, new evidence came to light "proving" their guilt, but they could now laugh at you in the knowledge that they got away with it. I know there are no simple answers here but I do think we need to rebalance the scales and give the law abiding citizens better protection. 

Same goes for technical flaws in procedure - we can apprarently trust our judges enough to have non-jury trials in the Special Criminal Court - but we cant give them discretion to judge whether a procedural flaw in warrants/arrests etc. etc. was such as to make the prosection unsafe?? Seems mad to me.

And what do we do with crazy judges?, there's the odd one going the road who get quoted with outrageous statements (some fella in Westmeath or thereabouts). Is this system objective enough to weed out the cranks?? I know that independence of the judiciary is key but again, can we not do better?


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Well if you allow the police to treat legal procedures as optional (in this or any other country) you know what happens next...


I agree with you, I was merely stating that it is a valid point to make and should be taken into account when weighing up the rights of the individual to the presumption of innocence and the duty of the state to provide a legal system that the people have faith in. We already have a problem with vigilantism and people taking the law into their own hands. The implications if the generality of citizenry lost faith in the legal system would be catastrophic.


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> How would you or your family feel if a rapist or murderer got off in court, new evidence came to light "proving" their guilt, but they could now laugh at you in the knowledge that they got away with it.


I would like to think I would abide by the law but I know that if someone that I knew was guilty raped or murdered a member of my family I would take the law into my own hands.


----------



## Betsy Og (18 Sep 2008)

Purple said:


> I would like to think I would abide by the law but I know that if someone that I knew was guilty raped or murdered a member of my family I would take the law into my own hands.


 
I think that illustrates my point that unless the scales are rebalanced to protect the innocent, the innocent will be tempted to seek their own recourse - and that would be a bad day.


----------



## Complainer (18 Sep 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> I think that illustrates my point that unless the scales are rebalanced to protect the innocent, the innocent will be tempted to seek their own recourse - and that would be a bad day.


It doesn't prove your point. It proves that a desire for revenge is a pretty normal and healthly human reaction, regardless of what way the scales are balanced. I doubt if Purple's ire in such a scenario would be resolved by a fair trial.


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Sep 2008)

There are an awful lot of injustices out there (some involving loss of life and/or lives being ruined) that do not lead to criminal trials, or indeed do not involve breaches of the law in the first instance. For example, take the regular instances of suicide victims who have been neglected by the public health authorities, and who have gone on to take their own lives. Those left behind have no option but to learn to live and let live.


----------



## Betsy Og (19 Sep 2008)

Complainer said:


> It doesn't prove your point. It proves that a desire for revenge is a pretty normal and healthly human reaction, regardless of what way the scales are balanced. I doubt if Purple's ire in such a scenario would be resolved by a fair trial.


 
So by that logic we should abolish the justice system altogether since the victims will never be happy?

Civil peace (i.e. the absence of widespread vigilantism, unbridled crime, riots etc.) is based on acceptance and respect for law enforcement at the front line, and a robust and balanced justice system behind it.

Now in Ireland we are no where near losing faith with the justice system, but there is a fairly significant level of dissatisfaction with the direction the system has moved, the perception being that its too in favour of the criminal, and what is needed is rebalancing. 

Am I to take it that you are happy with the current angle of the scales?


----------



## Complainer (19 Sep 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> So by that logic we should abolish the justice system altogether since the victims will never be happy?


Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. And by the same logic, 2 + 2 = 127.


----------



## Betsy Og (19 Sep 2008)

Complainer said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. And by the same logic, 2 + 2 = 127.


 
Well make your point so if you're able, the drivel is depressing me.


----------



## Complainer (19 Sep 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> Well make your point so if you're able, the drivel is depressing me.


I've made the point I want to make - see http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=708999&postcount=71


----------



## Betsy Og (19 Sep 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've made the point I want to make - see http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=708999&postcount=71


 
What I take from that is that you think victims will always be unhappy so theres no point in trying to better things? (maybe I've misinterpreted).

What I'm saying is that of course we should try to improve the system, the fact that we can never perfect it should not deter us from trying to improve it.  

So lets not despair and disregard the system altogether or resign it as being something incapable of improvement.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2008)

The function of the criminal justice system is not to make the victim feel better or to punish the perpetrator of a crime to a degree deemed suitable by the victim; it is to punish the perpetrator to a degree deemed appropriate by the state. 
For example, if someone raped my daughter I would kill them. I would do it in the slowest and most painful way I could. There is no way that the state could or should condone such actions. Justice and retribution are not the same thing.


----------



## Complainer (19 Sep 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> What I take from that is that you think victims will always be unhappy so theres no point in trying to better things? (maybe I've misinterpreted).



There you go again with that 2+2 thing.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Sep 2008)

Complainer said:


> There you go again with that 2+2 thing.


 
ok fair enough, its just that when people make a negative point but propose no solution it usually means they dont see one. 

Say someone says, "the health service is all a mess" and throws their hands up in exasperation, this typically means they have a sense that all is not well but are either unwilling or unable to suggest how it might be fixed.


----------

