Professional obligations;

              ATLANTA PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BIRMINGHAM
BOSTON HASKINS & SELLS PROVIDENCE
SAINT LOUIS
BUFFALO SALT LAKE CITY
CHICAGO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
CINCINNATI SEATTLE
CLEVELAND TULSA
DALLAS WATERTOWN
DENVER BULLETIN ____
DETROIT
KANSAS CITY
LOS ANGELES BERLIN
LONDON
PARIS
MINNEAPOLIS SHANGHAI
NEWARK NEW ORLEANS
NEW YORK EXECUTIVE OFFICES HAVANA
PHILADELPHIA HASKINS & SELLS BUILDING MEXICO CITY
PITTSBURGH 37 WEST 39TH ST., NEW YORK MONTREAL
VOL. VIII NEW YORK, JUNE, 1925 No. 6
Professional Obligations
IF an architect superintending a remodel-ing
job for a client were to permit,
without comment, a faulty part of the old
structure to be worked in with the new
construction, so that the latter proved a
detriment to the client's building, the
architect probably would be criticized by
the client. Without doubt, under the
circumstances, the criticism would be
justified.
If, after having the matter brought to
his attention, the client were to decide to
go ahead regardless, the risk would be his.
He is under no compulsion to heed infor­mation,
suggestion or advice. He is free
to act, or not, as he sees fit. But in case
of later defection no blame can attach to
the architect, as long as at the time he
performed the professional duty of direct­ing
the client's notice to the existing con­dition.
In some of the newer professions which
are feeling their way along, as it were,
there is a theory that if a professional man
is engaged for certain service, he should
restrict his attention to that service alone.
Yet a dentist engaged to fill a certain cavity
in a certain tooth scarcely could resist
noticing and commenting on a dangerous
condition that was palpably evident in a
tooth adjoining.
Practitioners in the older professions of
law and medicine seem to find no impropri­ety
in bringing to the attention of clients
situations which expose clients to unreal­ized
dangers. The moral obligation which
prompts the suggestion is sufficient warrant
for any risk of offense which the practi­tioner
may undertake.
By the same token it appears that certi­fied
public accountants not only are justi­fied
in so doing, but have a duty to invite
a client's attention to conditions which
render him liable to loss through omissions
or defects in his scheme of organization
and financial control.
In so doing there should be no suggestion
of force; no attempt to frighten with the
blatant argument that "four out of five"
business organizations suffer loss through
embezzlement; no suspicion directed at
any employe; no pressure of unwelcome
advice or importunity for revision of sys­tem;
simply a thorough, truthful, con­vincing
exposition of the facts in the situa­tion
and of the possibilities of irregularities
which the situation affords.
The decision must be made by the client.
The risk, if he permits an unsafe condition
to continue, is his. If the client sees fit
to do nothing in the premises, the incident
is closed. Having presented the facts, the
accountant has fulfilled his professional
obligation.