Sounds to me , just another "protection-racket"
If the old boy's network can stifle the dissemination of information ,outwith "the club", they can claim to be protecting their venerable profession whilst maintaining a stranglehold on consultancy for those with a vested interest (the membership)
Anyone remember the huge outcry when the property -transfer market was opened to "licensed conveyancers"? Closely-guarded was the knowledge that anyone could do their own conveyancing..arcane procedures, lack of co-operation and the lack of a central land-registry ensured this particular gravy-train remained firmly in the hands of Solicitors. the cost, nowadays, is less than it was 40 years ago...so about 1/3 in true terms.
40 years ago, Medics were infallible Gods. They closed-ranks, covered each -others' backsides and were only answerable to their Professional Body, which would throw it's weight behind the rare occasion where a Member was involved in a Court case.... Even then, ISTR, the "Patient-Confidentiality" and " Hippocratic oath" trump-cards usually got played.
I see no reason why anybody should not give advice over the Internet. It's little different to bar-room gossip and , by and large, most will accept the caveat,"it's worth what you paid for it"
I question the true motives for this rwellian attempt to control the freedom of knowledge.. Have we really not moved on from the days when the printing-press bought literacy to the lower-classes?
The obvious solution is to use an "unqualified" provy to publish your opinions