¶ … quality control requirements and peer reviews take a dim view of these proceedings. They state that such requirements favor larger, national firms to the detriment of smaller firms. The article implies that such regulations should be left to the firms themselves, on an in-house and voluntary basis, rather than to the government. Self-policing goes on already, it is suggested, and the requirements merely force small firms to adapt a costly rather than a simple organizational structure, for what has always existed, at least informally, for quality firms. Evaluate whether quality control requirements and peer reviews are worth their cost.

The article offers no hard evidence to back up such an assertion and moreover, it puts firms in the unfair and discomforting position of having to position themselves as both regulators and auditors, of overseeing their own staff as well as encouraging their staff to cut costs. Thus, the additional costs are indeed worthy for greater ethical stringency in the profession…