Professional Image and Conduct

I saw this type of conduct (not in the press, but in presentations) by CPAs for quite a while. The chilling effect was those firms got more business temporarily, but in the long run it just tended to drive people to the "out of town expert" mentality. That is to say, no one in the area is qualified, I am going to have to bring someone from Chicago or New York (insert your favorite major metropolitan city here) to do the work. The side effect of this was that costs went up because the "out of town experts" had higher fees and expense costs, and the local firms had to reduce fees dramatically to make their offerings attractive. ie. If the price is low enough I can afford to bring in experts if the locals screw it up.

Of course we all know how it ended up . . . Enron, et al. The big firms got caught manipulating the numbers and rules for their clients and now the CPA firms are getting crunched all over because there are so many more requirements to follow (especially in Audit) and clients are not willing to pay for the extra time it takes to follow all the new guidelines, thus higher write offs for firms of all sizes. Small practitioners are especially impacted because of all the additional CPE (continuing professional ed.) that is required to keep up with the new changes. Although the total amount of required CPE credits has not increased much, the requirements for the specialties (ie Red Book audits) makes it much more difficult to be a generalist and thus harder on the smaller firms to do it all for their clients.

I can see the possibility of a similar chilling trend in CF driving down fees, creating micro-specialties, etc. And probably some quasi-governmental agency licensing/cert. process that also sits around and spews binders full of edicts that are to be followed. (Like FASAB is for accountants)

Great question, and the whole approach to building a profession is an issue I also ponder. I would offer that any public competitor bashing is unprofessional. As your competitor, I want to be hired because I deliver better value than you, not because I can put you down. I flunked Mind Reading 101, so this is a guess, but I'd say those who publicly bash another have a really low self-esteem issue. Maybe from a realization their own work has quality issues. Maybe not.

- when was the last time you saw in a newspaper where a barrister was criticizing or strongly inferring another barrister didn't know what s/he was doing or not meeting a standard etc? Rarely, if at all. Why? Because in their profession, if there is a problem it is dealt with directly to the individual and not to the world at large.

I would suggest it's because they have one single professional association that handles discipline of its members. In the US it's the state bar; I hope trewmte you'll help educate me how the UK system works. As examiners, there's no common association. No common body of knowledge. No common certification. No common education or training. I'm an examiner because I say I am. While that is just a characteristic of the beast today, I'd like to see it change. At one time the barber surgeon did what ever the patient told him to do. That changed. We also need to change. I hope it doesn't take us 200 years. )

1) Do computer forensic professionals believe using the press to imply or infer other CF firms or people are not up to the author of the comments subjective views is helpful to CF's professional image/reputation?

If they do, they don't understand marketing. This is really a self-defeating approach to business.

2) Do CF people think there is a Professional reputation to tarnish in the first place?

Hmmm. I sure hope so.

4) Are CF firms that criticize other CF firms in ther press acting outside of an expected level of professional conduct expected of them?

I'd say they're acting badly. As you my guess a pet peeve of mine is we don't have a commonly expected level of professional conduct since we don't have a common anything else.

BTW I am not posing this discussion for research or a thesis question or such like.

Research and thesis work is something we all need however. It's part of the peer review process. I am glad you posted the question and I hope it launches a good discussion on the professionalism ideals of examiners.

I would suggest it's because they have one single professional association that handles discipline of its members. In the US it's the state bar; I hope trewmte you'll help educate me how the UK system works. As examiners, there's no common association. No common body of knowledge. No common certification. No common education or training. I'm an examiner because I say I am. While that is just a characteristic of the beast today, I'd like to see it change. At one time the barber surgeon did what ever the patient told him to do. That changed. We also need to change. I hope it doesn't take us 200 years.

I absolutely agree that a common governing body would be a benefit, I just hope it is a peer based group and not a government body like FASAB.

If we are a professional body we do have to be self-governing. Your example of FASAB is a good example, thanks. While there's a role for FASAB within the government, CPA's are a self-regulating group of peers with a common body of knowledge, ethics and standards. CPA's are also a profession we can use to model ourselves.

Jenson Button has probably beaten Michael Schumacher before in a race. Both are competent drivers, it doesnt necessarily follow that therefore Schumacher is incompetent and shouldnt be allowed to drive….
On the subject of peer reviewing bodies, this is surely the CRFP purpose (for the UK at least). Which i have seen best described as more of a driving license, ie the following of procedures and process, rather than certification that you are excellent with X,Y and Z products.

Quite true. A problem with any profession is that if a person meets and continues to meet the standards for that profession, they remain a member of the profession. It's like the OLD joke, what to you can the guy who graduates last in his class at med school? Doctor. Same principle would apply to examiners. There's a difference between a great doctor and one that, well, isn't. Like wise examiners will be able to conduct an examination, but might miss things that someone else will notice.

It doesn't mean in any profession that serious practitioners don't continue to strive to be better. I have a drivers license but both Button and Schumacher have faster reactions that I do.

Jamie posted a link a week ago or so about an examiner who had been a pretty bad example. But, he had (it seems) conducted 700 examinations. That experience would qualify him as an "expert" in most US courts given the lack of other criteria for the profession.

Thanks for the replies and good responses. Apologies in advance for the length of this reply.

I saw this type of conduct (not in the press, but in presentations) by CPAs for quite a while. The chilling effect was those firms got more business temporarily….. Of course we all know how it ended up . . . Enron, et al. The big firms got caught manipulating the numbers and rules…..I can see the possibility of a similar chilling trend in CF driving down fees, creating micro-specialties, etc. And probably some quasi-governmental agency licensing/cert. process that also sits around and spews binders full of edicts that are to be followed….

Bithead - I agree that if negative press continues it wont help and it is a false marketing ploy.

From time to time I give talks and from reactions to the question "does forensics and in parrticular technology forensics interest you?", I have the response, particularly from the younger audience, that they don't see it as exicting and interesting as they read the industry tends to slag each other off. That is disappointing.

ddow - glad to see you and Bithead have similar observations to me. Old war stories can be irritating at times - but I got to say in the early days of CF publicly denigrating for promotional purposes was rarely heard about. Perhaps because we were all (old and young) discovering how things worked and what could be learned from them. Possibly naive, but we felt like pioneers (our Mount Everest) and each could share experiences, because we were all learning. I have a feeling that today some feel they have to strut like peacocks in order to make people believe they know what they are talking about. I indicate to students on my training courses that "Data is dispassionate, so should the expert be." If we appear to the outside world as emotional and greedy and not in control of ourselves, what right do we think we have to deal with evidence that requires self-control (independent objective impartial) and our conclusions can potentially impact on someone's life.

As your competitor, I want to be hired because I deliver better value than you, not because I can put you down.

Exactly.

I hope trewmte you'll help educate me how the UK system works.

The UK is fairly divided as to what is required. For expert witnesses there are professional bodies, such as The Academy of Experts, Expert Witness Institute and Society of Expert Witnesses etc. The established expert directory in the UK is the UK Register of Experts (JS publications), produced by Dr Chris Pamplin. Chris is a smashing fellow, and very helpful, who I have known for some years. I have put contact links at my webblog (http//trewmte.blogspot.com) if anyone fancies looking further. It is worth noting, it is not a compulsory requirement to join any of the above bodies. Professionally, I would recommend it though. I have been a member of the Academy of Experts since 1993. However, it is the court that decides whether an individual is acceptable to give expert evidence, no matter how an individual may market her/himself.

In technology terms, fairly recently (and I mean fairly recently) CRFP has offered itself as a peer body. It is not compulsory to join CRFP and as far as I can understand they could validate computer forensic methodology and handling evidence. As far as I know CRFP haven't stated or inferred/implied that by joining as a member and having the CF methodology validation makes a member an Expert, qualifying them to give evidence at court. This doesn't mean that you should not join CRFP, it really is a question of choice. A person could join an association such as the British Computer Society or the Institute of Electrical Engineers or something else. It is as likely, that if a person can demonstrate their skill and experience this could make them as equally a candidate to provide opinion on evidence as a person who is a member of a body or society.

Given there is no over arching ruling body (except our Judges and Courts), this seems similar in a way to the US model you mentioned ddow.

I'm an examiner because I say I am.

I loved this comment ddow - well said.

Research and thesis work is something we all need however. It's part of the peer review process.

I agree and I endeavour to publish and pass on my experiences as much as is practicable to do so.

I'll look at both the blog and the CFRP info. Thanks for all the info.

I hope we see more comments from others.

I'll throw in my $.02. I'm familiar with a licensing board and minimum standards (given that I'm licensed to practice law in two states).

Mere licensing doesn't stop trash-talking of other professionals, especially when you have what economists would call the 'unequal information' problem. The _average_ consumer of legal or forensic services can't accurately measure the actual quality of a practitioner, so they often use superficial measures, such as the apparent wealth of the practitioner. (If he's billing me a lot of money, he's got to be good).

I noticed a lot of this when I clerked for the Public Defender's office. Some of the best advocates worked there. They didn't look like much, driving beaten up old cars, dressing the part. Their courtroom styles were low key but effective. Watching a Defender get a cop to agree with them with a smile during cross examination was magic. From an outsider, it didn't look like work.

Contrast that to the flashy private attorneys who would get in pointless arguments with adverse witnesses. Flashy, but ineffective. They often trashed us to get our clients to hire them, then asked for advice while we were eating lunch together.

Why did this work? If you're a novice, either in hiring computer forensics people or lawyers, you can't canvass all the practitioners. You're going to go with a gut feeling, based on superficial information. Once you've worked in the space for a while, you'll know who won't let you down. But most consumers aren't regular customers of criminal defense attorneys or forensics companies.

I'm not sure what my point is here. I think I need more coffee.