The Split Recommendation: How UK Clients Can Decide When Advisers Disagree

Few situations test a client's judgement more sharply than receiving two well-argued, credible recommendations that point in opposite directions. One adviser may favour investment in new systems; another may argue for retrenchment. One may recommend a joint venture; another may counsel a narrower, organic route. Both have relevant experience. Both can point to evidence. The decision, however, remains with the client.

The temptation is to resolve the matter quickly: split the difference, adopt the recommendation from the more senior adviser, or commission a third report that merely adds another voice. Each approach can produce a decision, but none is a reliable method of reaching one. A more disciplined process is needed.

Separate factual disagreement from professional judgement

Begin by classifying the conflict. Some disagreements are factual. The advisers may hold different figures for market size, implementation costs, staff availability or regulatory requirements. These are not matters of opinion. They should be checked against primary sources: management accounts, contracts, HMRC guidance, Companies House filings, sector regulators or direct operational data. If one set of facts is wrong, the disagreement may narrow or disappear.

Other disagreements are matters of judgement. Two competent advisers can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about risk appetite, sequencing, timing or the likelihood of success. That is not necessarily a failure of analysis. It may reflect different assumptions, experience or interpretations of the client's capacity. The client's task is not to declare one adviser irrational, but to understand why the conclusions diverge.

Test the assumptions behind each view

Ask each adviser to set out the assumptions on which their recommendation depends. A useful request is a short written note covering: the commercial outcome expected; the resources required; the key external dependencies; the risks being accepted; and the evidence relied upon. The note should be concise enough to compare side by side.

Once the assumptions are visible, identify which are load-bearing. If a recommendation depends on winning a particular contract, retaining a key member of staff or securing finance within a fixed period, that dependency should be examined closely. Ask each adviser what would cause them to change their mind. A credible answer will identify specific evidence or thresholds. An answer that simply restates the original position is less useful.

Interrogate the evidence, not the title

Seniority is not evidence. A recommendation from a long-established adviser may still rest on thin data or on experience drawn from a different sector or size of business. Equally, a less senior voice may have closer knowledge of the client's operations.

Look for the provenance of the evidence. Is the market data recent and relevant to the UK? Does the financial model use the client's actual cost base? Has the adviser considered regulatory constraints, such as those affecting data protection, employment or sector-specific licensing? Has the adviser disclosed any commercial interest in the recommended course? These questions are not adversarial. They are basic diligence.

Hold a short joint session with a clear purpose

A joint conversation can be valuable, but only if it is structured. The purpose is not to stage a debate or to ask the advisers to reach consensus. It is to compare assumptions, identify points of agreement and isolate the remaining differences.

The client should chair. Set an agenda: agreed facts, disputed facts, assumptions, risks and the decision to be taken. Ask each adviser to summarise the other's position fairly before responding. This reduces the risk of caricature. Record the discussion in writing. A sixty- to ninety-minute session is often enough if the preparatory notes are good.

Choose a decision rule, not an average

Averaging two recommendations is rarely sensible. If one adviser recommends a full acquisition and the other recommends no acquisition, a half-acquisition is not a coherent strategy. The client needs a decision rule.

Useful rules include: preferring the option with the lowest cost of reversal; staging the commitment through a pilot or phased investment; setting a trigger that would cause the client to switch course; or prioritising the option that protects the most critical constraint, such as cash flow, regulatory standing or key staff. The rule should be agreed before the final decision is made, so that it is not merely a rationalisation of preference.

Record the decision and the dissent

Document the outcome. A short decision memo should state the question, the facts agreed, the facts disputed, the assumptions relied upon, the chosen course, the reasons for it and the review date. It should also record the dissenting view. This is not bureaucracy. It creates accountability and gives future reviewers a clear record of why the client chose one path over another. If circumstances change, the memo shows which assumptions have been invalidated.

Know when a third view is justified

Sometimes a third opinion is appropriate, but not as a tie-breaker chosen by seniority. It is justified when there is a genuine factual gap, a specialist technical issue or a conflict of interest that undermines one recommendation. In that case, define the third adviser's brief narrowly. Ask for a review of the specific point in dispute, not another full strategy.

The client owns the decision

Conflicting advice can be a sign of healthy scrutiny rather than a failure of the advisory market. The client's responsibility is to create a process that distinguishes fact from judgement, tests assumptions and records a reasoned choice. At Harman Dean, the practical view is straightforward: good advice informs a decision; it does not replace the client's accountability for making it.