[krypticide]

It's not a matter of professionalism (though it should be), but a matter of trustworthiness. There are plenty of professionals or companies out there that are not trustworthy, even if they are professional.

[stewart_photo]

A co-worker of mine got married 2+ years ago (snip)

The problem I see, Mike, is your repeated references to Stan, a person instead of a business. Who in their right mind would give $5000 up front to a person without a substantial local business investment, such as an established brick & mortar business location and perhaps much more? After nearly three decades in business (not wedding photography), with substantial client references, I do not and would not seek payment up front for anything other than the typical costs associated with my part of this industry.

Why would anyone wait months to get concerned about that missing $5000 purchase? Why would anyone wait nearly a full year to get "miffed" about it, or only then research "Stan" on the internet? And, finally, why would anyone wait even longer to seek restitution in small claims or magistrate court? Most have time limits. In states with lessor small claims or magistrate court limits, usually the husband and wife can file jointly as litigants damaged in a single incident, seeking separate judgements which, when combined, will often equal the original greater loss.

Regardless of answers to any of that, I don't see what this story has to do with defining "professional" one way or the other. Professionals at whatever (photography, law, etc), just like anyone else, can be unsavory or even outright crooks. Customers should use wisdom and reasonable caution to separate those from the honest, ligitimate, business professional.

stewart

[MRRiley]

Stewart....

1. Stan IS "the business" and is an established professional. His studio name happens to match his full name so my reference to him as simply Stan is irrelevent. He did have a formal studio location in "MD" and has one in his current location as far as I know. Even if he didn't, many high profile wedding photographers work without large formal studios.

2. He did gave lots of good references although I believe now that most of those were probably in on the act.

3. Full payment by the day of the wedding is standard operating procedure in the wedding photography business. A little research on your part will confirm this.

4. It is common to wait for months for wedding albums from top photographers. Again a little research on your part will confirm this. In any event, many of the "albumless"couples did became concerned early on, but Stan is evidently very adept at "smoothing ruffled feathers". His assurances and explanations rang true to most of these folks initially and they let themselves be led on. Were they niave? Probably! I personally agree, I would have been sitting on his doorstep a lot sooner. Another factor is, that these couples had no idea that they were just one of a multitude of victims until Mark started his blog and people began finding others with the same tale of sorrow.

5. Several of the couples HAVE sued Stan and some of those have actually gotten albums after Stan lost in court. Others, including my friends are pursuing legal action against him at this point as well.

6. I didn't SAY this had anything to do with defining "professional... I simply said Stan was a professional who was acting "less than professionally!" To me, part of being a professional is delivering on your promises and commitment. Stan has failed to meet his obligations to nearly 30 couples and this calls his professionalism into question from where I sit. I presented this simply as a cautionary tale that shows that some pros can, in your words, be unsavory or even outright crooks". If you find this obvious, I'm glad, but sometimes the obvious bears telling or retelling.

Now...

All of these couples tried to exercise "wisdom and reasonable caution" however they were still taken. This just shows that Stan was very good at fooling people. It does not make them culpable for being taken. Perhaps you think it does, but that is akin to blaming rape victims for wearing sexy clothing or robbery victims from wearing a gold Rolex. No, these folks chose a person that appeared to be trustworthy and capable and who presented himself as an established professional. Most of them checked his references and these confirmed that he was safe to deal with. Were they deceived? Yes, but that does not make them culpable in their loss.