Gavin Murphy, a director of Bannister Mansfield Financial Services, which is not a member of the FPA, says despite the association’s success last week in having the firm cease running newspaper advertisements critical of the FPA and its chief executive, the FPA failed in its effort to “obtain a gag order to shut us up”.

Murphy and Bannister Mansfield consented in the Federal Court last week to orders made by Justice Annabelle Bennett that they be restrained from publishing the advertisements, and the matter was adjourned until February 23.

The advertisement ran twice, once in the Sunday Telegraph and once in the Daily Telegraph. In a statement on Friday, the FPA said it had “engaged solicitors and asked Mr Murphy to stop running the advertisement, after it appeared in the Sunday Telegraph this week”.

“However, when the advertisement appeared in Thursday’s Daily Telegraph, the FPA and Ms Bloch had little choice but to apply to the Federal Court in Sydney for an injunction against Mr Murphy and Bannister Mansfield Financial Services,” it said.

In an alert sent to members last week, the FPA said: “Mr Murphy’s offensive advertisements besmirch the reputation of our CEO Jo-Anne Bloch, the FPA and its members by comparing them and/or their conduct to disgraced former US Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

“The advertisements question Jo-Anne’s and FPA members’ professional integrity and honesty,” it said.

“It suggests attempts by the FPA and its membership to put client interests first are not genuine. It is offensive to all financial planners.”

Murphy says Bannister Mansfield consented to withdraw the ad “to avoid further acrimony”, and that the FPA has indicated that Bannister Mansfield and Murphy will be sued for defamation.

Murphy says the ad was placed “not to target the FPA, but to acknowledge the current public opinion of the financial planning industry and to highlight how Bannister Mansfield’s longstanding clients first approach and its services can remedy some of the shortcomings that led to loss of faith in the industry”.

Murphy, represented in Friday’s proceedings by Sydney barrister Kate Traill, says he is surprised “about the vigour with which the FPA has responded to [my] comments”, and says “many in the industry have called and emailed” him with support for his views.

“They tried to obtain a gag order to shut us up but the Judge kicked their application out of court,” Murphy says.

“We look forward to any further court action by the FPA and Jo-Anne Bloch. We will not be bullied by either of them and we relish the opportunity to have our day in court”.

Before the FPA’s legal action, Murphy told Professional Planner that the firm did not understand why the FPA was “so upset with the ad. It merely states the obvious”.

“I would have thought the FPA has better things to do with their members fees, like restoring faith in the industry, rather then trying to quash dissent,” Murphy said.

“It is interesting to note that in a recent [newspaper] article...FPA Chief Executive Jo-Anne Bloch claims that the [new code of ethics] ‘demonstrates to members, clients and key stakeholders that our members stand apart from other financial planners who have not made appropriate commitments to professionalism’.

“Doesn’t that mean that prior to adopting the new code, the FPA’s members also lacked ‘professionalism’?

“By saying ‘FPA members stand apart from other financial planners who have not made appropriate commitments to professionalism’ Jo-Anne Bloch is clearly insinuating that non-FPA members are ‘unprofessional’.

“That seems to be acceptable for her to say, yet any criticism of the FPA itself then becomes an apparent cause for legal action. Don’t non-members have the right of reply?

[They are] essentially bullying planners into becoming an FPA member. If you don’t or if you disagree, the FPA seems to think they have the right to publicly discredit you.”

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

Don't shoot the planners
written by Ian - an adviser -with an ax to grind, February 20, 2009

Bannister Mansfield - is of the view that all planners should live by his "untested exalted" view of the world - to achieve this he fails the first test of being an adult - he seeks to Condem, criticise and complain. (the three C's)bit like my teenager really.
The FPA have come a long way in recent times - Ms Bloch and her team are bright, capable and of good heart - I have seen a really well directed effort in improving a whole range of issues for the Financial Planning profession. In comparison to what came before she and the FPA team have been a breath of fresh air. Notwithstanding, the FPA does not control the agenda nor the actions of the distribution and sales arm - in this regard - the utopia will need to be achieved by collective effort and goodwill of all stakes holders. In amongst all the aspirations we might have a very significant group competing commercial interests work to frustrate good intentions- the platforms, The fund managers and the middle men - the dealer groups. Paul RESNIK provides very good commentary on this - For as long as these three continue to cream off the best of the returns - the planner is left grasping for $$ survival. None of the larger players (platforms/fund managers/dealer groups) have any commercial reason for changing the status quo. To see what the Australian cost of delivery to the client for what we provide in comparison to the US, say for example, is an embarrasment. I find it a bit rich to start shooting at the planners (or any group that seeks to improve their standing) because they have to navigate a very tricky set of commercial realities. To move or to stay?
Man up "Bannister Mansfield" how are you contributing to the improvement or are you just taking cheap shots from behind moral indignation.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

FPA - What do they do?
written by -, February 10, 2009

After having been in the industry for a number of years, completed post-graduate education, and now a practicing financial adviser, I find it difficult to see any value of being a member of the FPA or completing the CFP program. Most people seem to think that these initials are selling tools to clients, however I have never had a client ask me about it. If they did I would not be able to speak highly of either. Most of the people I have seen in the industry peddling this acronyms appear to be the same people whom bring the industry into disrepute. Working within a major accounting firm with accountants who are CA's or CPA's and what these institutions provide for their members and the public campaigns they run appear to be more affective and of value compared to anything the FPA or the AFA have on offer.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Money Better Spent
written by Robert, February 09, 2009

The price we pay for free speech is that sometimes we offend.

As Professionals, refraining from intentially offending and how we react to offensive behaviour,is the true measure of maturity.

An industry that continues to embroll itself in public insults and critisisms sends a clear message that it is immature.Surely there are better ways to resolve our differences.

The FPA and Bannister Mansfield Financial Services would be better served but "making peace" and in place of making the lawyers richer, make a contribution to the victims of the bushfires in Vic or Flood Victims in NQ.

• 
• +5
• 
• 

...
written by Matthew Brown, February 09, 2009

It would be far more beneficial for Murphy and Bannister Mansfield to only look after their own backyard and promote themselves sure, but let's not criticise our own Industry at all from within. In these difficult times, all clients and the general public need our Industry to show Leadership, show them that we are here to help them and guide them through these troubled waters, not have negatives comments against our own. At least the FPA (which is recognised worldwide as our own Industry Association) is at the forefront showing Leadership, helping our own Colleagues, engaging and developing policies to grow, protect and build our Industry with the Government and Regulators. Murphy and Bannister Mansfield should be promoting our Industry and its supporters, and then maybe he wouldn't have to "have his day in Court" and members fees could be used to put a positive appraoch to our Industry.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

What an insult!
written by Ben Shaw, February 09, 2009

I am a member of the FPA not because I was bullied to do so but because I want to be seen as a professional who belongs to a professional association. I can assure Mr Murphy that I act in my client's best interest and how dare he infer any different.

He should take some of his own medicine and instead of insulting the wider financial planning community he should be out there trying to rebuild people's confidence in the market place. You never know, he may even increase his own business with that type of professionalism.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

Authorised Representative - Professional Investment Services
written by Christopher, February 09, 2009

Putting the client first, must always be the priority, within the guidelines of your dealers APL, ASIC requirements and other legislative requirements. Doing anything other than this is unprofessional, and opens ones person and business to future ligitation, should the advice (or lack thereof) prove incorrect.

• 
• +13
• 
• 

Write comment

Show/hide comment form