Shonky Professionals should pays consumers' losses

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 6 2003
CONTACT: Peter Carter 0422 445 599

A community group spoke out today against moves to limit the responsibility of professionals who blow consumers' savings by their shonky work.

The Civil Justice Foundation made the plea in advance of the insurance summit to be attended by State attorneys-general in Adelaide tomorrow.

The States are under pressure from accountants groups and some state law societies to let their members off the hook for the full cost of the financial ruin they cause through negligence, inattention or even recklessness.

With the support of the federal government, many professional groups have been lobbying for months to have the liability of lawyers and accountants to their clients for incompetent work, capped.

"Limited liability is the beginning of a responsibility-free zone for professionals and care-free advice," said Peter Carter, a director of the Foundation and also a lawyer. "It is anti-consumer and lawyers should be the first to resist it."

"Consumers can be equally devastated by the negligent management of their affairs as they can by injuries from reckless workplaces or by dangerous products."

While the majority practice skilfully and ethically, there will always be shonks. "Why should dodgy lawyers and accountants be protected from full responsibility for the consequences of the harm they cause?"

Mr Carter said that the capping proposal was especially harmful to the disadvantaged. "While big companies might be able to weather the consequences of their affairs being botched by a professional, the average consumer would have little or no chance to recover from the financial ruin that can follow."

The capping of liability means that in many cases the losses caused by incompetent advice are transferred from the shonky professional and their insurance company to the taxpayer, for example where a family loses its savings and the breadwinner is forced onto social security.

"In the case of any conflict between a professional's duty to the client and self interest, ethics require that the client be put first. Lawyers also have a special duty to the public as the guardians of individual freedoms and in this case that duty requires them to reject the call that their liability be capped."

- Ends -