"Legal Reforms represent an attack on independence"

How would it ever be practical to require every company director to have a qualification?
If my neighbour starts selling belly-button fluff on the internet and registers a company to do so what qualification should they have? Why would they need any particular qualification? If they are competent they will stay in business, if they are not then they won’t. Anyway, highly qualified people are no more likely to start businesses than people with no qualifications oh, and qualifications and competence are not the same thing.

Any-how, back on topic, this thread is about independent regulation of the legal profession. If we talked about the legal industry it would be more apt.
Self regulation will always be self-serving. Self interest can be close to public interest but it will never be completely aligned. For example some people in the legal industry will say that minimum income levels should be maintained in order to keep skills etc available. This is of course rubbish and just an excuse for price fixing, even of the proponents of the idea honestly don’t realise it. The same nonsense is also aired by members of other industries/professions and they also think it’s a good idea because they are focused only on their needs and don’t have the necessary perspective to see their sector in the broader context.

BTW, the painter was a metaphor.
 
Before you engage in a veiled attack on my profession I suggest you look at the difference in salaries/"compensation" between directors, solicitors, doctors, accountants and - architects.

As to your suggestion that competence equals business success, nothing is further from the truth.
Competence directly relates to professional service, but it doesn't guarantee a successful practice.
Cherry-pickers of skills and abilities are suited by arguments that suggest we should all be buffeted by the winds of world trade, yet these are the very people who are in the most privileged positions, with little personal responsibility or liability.
The laissez faire situation with regards to people operating as directors of companies must be brought under regulation just as the professions must be properly regulated - for the greater good.
There are sufficient examples of unscrupulous directors abusing the markets and member of the public or indeed whole swathes of the public to justify someone taking a long hard look being taken at the last refuge of the marginally competent, but suggesting people of relatively low achievement and/or limited life experience should be allowed regulate a profession is a joke.

The reason we are in the smelly stuff is that people who don't understand economies have allowed those providing unregulated financial services to ruin them.

"I'm a successful entripenair so I can comment on everything and you should take me seriously"

Seriously? Because you sell fluff to fluff fanatics? Ehhhh, nope!

We saw the recent nonsense spewed by Michael Casey in relation to the architect's role in the building industry.
This is one of those who think that austerity will restore health to an economy, equating starvation with fitness - yet never stinting on his own intake.
He's one of the best that private enterprise, education and industry have to offer, yet anyone can see that putting him on any board to regulate a profession would be a disaster.

So it comes back to non-professionals regulating professionals.
The think that people who can become directors instantly on the signing of a company document should be governing those who have studied years and forgone their earning potential to become professionals.
Telling them, in the aftermath of a period of unregulated aggressive, negligent lending how they should run their affairs and how much they should be paid.

Not for me thanks - I want someone who knows the score, not someone who has cornered a transient market for a few years thinking he's "competent".
 
onq said:
Before you engage in a veiled attack on my profession I suggest you look at the difference in salaries/"compensation" between directors, solicitors, doctors, accountants and - architects.
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea where that came from. I didn’t refer to your profession once and the market sets prices, not qualification.

onq said:
As to your suggestion that competence equals business success, nothing is further from the truth.
Click to expand...
No, I said that without competence you won’t succeed. That’s not the same thing. I also said that qualification is not the same thing as competence.

onq said:
Competence directly relates to professional service, but it doesn't guarantee a successful practice.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are very competent professionals who are useless at running their business.

You lost me there.
onq said:
The laissez faire situation with regards to people operating as directors of companies must be brought under regulation just as the professions must be properly regulated - for the greater good.
Click to expand...
I agree, but regulation is there to protect the public from dishonesty as much or more than from incompetence.
Again, dishonesty and incompetence are not the same thing.

onq said:
"I'm a successful entripenair so I can comment on everything and you should take me seriously"

Seriously? Because you sell fluff to fluff fanatics? Ehhhh, nope!
Click to expand...
Who said that? For the record, I’m not an entrepreneur and would never claim to be. I regard my wife as one but she’s also a skilled professional... go figure.

I agree. He shouldn’t be appointed to a regulatory board.
onq said:
He's one of the best that private enterprise, education and industry have to offer, yet anyone can see that putting him on any board to regulate a profession would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about the guy but he’s formed strong opinions about a sector without talking to experts within that sector. In that he’s shown that he’s the wrong man for the job.

onq said:
So it comes back to non-professionals regulating professionals.
Click to expand...
The majority of the people regulating the medical profession are non medical. The profession hasn’t imploded because of it.

onq said:
The think that people who can become directors instantly on the signing of a company document should be governing those who have studied years and forgone their earning potential to become professionals.
Click to expand...
Who suggested that? Of course there should be a large group of lawyers on the board that regulates lawyers but they shouldn’t be a majority. The regulators function is to make sure that the professionals in question operate within a framework as set down in the legislation that established the statutory body. They won’t be setting the rules; they will be enforcing them.

By the way, time spent studying and the income forgone is utterly irrelevant. Time spent in formal education does not elevate people onto a higher plain of existence or instil them with a higher sense of morality.

onq said:
Telling them, in the aftermath of a period of unregulated aggressive, negligent lending how they should run their affairs and how much they should be paid.
Click to expand...
Yea, that’s what caused it alright.

onq said:
Not for me thanks - I want someone who knows the score, not someone who has cornered a transient market for a few years thinking he's "competent".
Click to expand...
Ok, so the taxi regulator should be a taxi driver, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register