Financial Advisors v Solicitors v Doctors v Accountants

[bamboozle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

greed and money

 

[LDFerguson]

...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]

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.