Fully_Applying_a_Decision-Making_Framework

The main ethical dilemma for Albert Gable, partner in a CPA firm is whether he should continue as financial advisor for Larry and Susan Wilson. This dilemma steamed with Albert Gable constructing a comprehensive personal financial plan for Larry and Susan Wilson, which rendered him knowledgeable of their marriage difficulties (University of Phoenix, 2007, p. 284). While Albert Gable was working on Larry and Susan Wilson’s financial plan he also performed an annual audit on the city’s largest bank, whom he has a long standing relationship with the loan officer. While performing the audit one of the selected test pulled files was that of Larry and Susan Wilson’s. Having prior knowledge of the married couple’s trouble, Albert discovered that the information supplied did not match to his understanding. After speaking with the loan officer, he found that Larry Wilson was setting up his wife for divorce and to leave her penniless. The loan officer requested that Albert leave the conversation as “locker room talk” (University of Phoenix, 2007, p. 284). There are several stakeholders involved in this situation that has been created by Albert Wilson acting as financial advisor, and auditor with two different clients. The stake holders involved include Larry Wilson, Susan Wilson, loan officer, bank, Albert, and Albert’s daughter. The interest of each stake holder varies, however each is just as important. Larry Wilson wants to see his wife penniless after the divorce, thus setting us accounts to ensure his desire. Susan Wilson stands to become penniless after the divorce because of her husbands’ actions. The loan officer for he provided personal knowledge of the Wilson’s without their consent or knowledge. The bank as they have a reputation, and it can be hindered by the loan officer’s actions. Albert is relying on the bonus from the billing. Albert’s daughter as the bonus from Albert’s billing is to be used for her tuition and expenses when starting college in the Fall (University of Phoenix, 2007, p. 284). Albert’s decision as to how to handle his dilemma leaves him with different scenario’s to play out and consequences to follow for each one. Should Albert share with Larry and Susan Wilson what he learned from the bank, then Susan is able to take legal action against Larry which would end with each party member in litigation minus Albert’s daughter. This could cause the bank learning of the loan officer’s disclosure, which would give the bank a reputation of non-confidentiality, thus losing business. The bank would also stand to be sued by the Wilson’s for disclosing without written consent from them, which could turn to a personal law suit with the loan officer for defaming. With the litigation the bank is facing they would have no choice but to remove Albert’s firm as auditor and sue him for damages. Albert would encounter his own legal issues for not keeping client confidentiality. Should Albert choose to keep what he has learned as “locker room talk” the above scenario would not play out and Larry and Susan Wilson would continue on their current course which would leave Susan divorce and penniless. Albert choice given the dilemma and the chain of events that can occur is to keep working as the Wilson’s financial advisor, however to seek another partner to assist with the preparation. While preparing the financial plan Albert and his partner can try to influence Larry and Susan Wilson into settling their financial responsibilities before divorce or to work their relationship difference out if possible. Albert with his partner can show the Wilson’s different examples of how settling separately could be to their disadvantage. Albert as a CPA can show how the tax breaks for married couples are different of those separate and how the filings of future returns would impact their financial standing. The drawback to this approach is that the Wilson’s can find Albert’s plan and not in their best interest and Susan Wilson would find herself in the same situation had Albert removed himself from preparing their financial plan. The philosophical approached used for this decision was the consequentialism (University of Phoenix, 2007, p. 330.). Consequentialism says that we have only one basic duty: to do whatever has the best consequences (JCU EDU, 2011). Using this approach allows all parties involved to sustain the best possible outcome. Albert is able to stay as the financial advisor and obtain his bonus. Albert’s daughter will be attending college in the Fall with her tuition and expense paid. The use of another financial advisor will aide Albert with staying on task and giving his professional opinion which would help persuade the Wilson’s into looking more closely at their finances and weighing the pros and cons of staying together and working out their differences. This will also ensure that Larry is not “setting his wife up for divorce”, thus leaving her penniless. The bank and loan officer would be safe from litigation as Albert would not share his findings, which keeps client confidentially intact. In conclusion using Consequentialism allows for all parties to have the best outcome, even if Albert should have resigned from his financial advisor position with the Wilsons. Albert’s resignation would have caused more effects then the way described. Although always doing the right thing is the way to live one’s life, there are times when there are exceptions to the rule. This case in one, as doing the right thing would cause more harm than good. If the circumstances were different, such as legal obligations, then Albert might have had to make a different choice.