Around three-quarters of advisers have received false or manufactured accusations from Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) complainants, an increase in 10% over three years.
The survey of 183 advisers by Panacea Adviser also found that 17% thought awards had been made for event which had either not happened or not been complained about.
The majority of advisers (58%) also said the FOS is not fair and 78% believe the FOS lacks a solid industry understanding of the issues they adjudicate on.
The number who thought the Ombudsman was not fair was down by 25% compared to figures from 2011, those who thought it was remained static at 17%.
The number of advisers who said they had experienced "false or manufactured accusations" had increased by 10% to 74% of advisers.
The FOS put advisers in a disadvantaged position from the outset in the view of 86% of advisers.
And 93% felt Advisers should enjoy the same rights and methods of appeal to the courts enjoyed by claimants.
Derek Bradley, CEO of Panacea Adviser, said: "When we conducted this same survey back in 2011 - a pre-RDR, pre-FCA time - the results showed that something was seriously wrong with a system which was meant to be fair, open and honest, and where complaints that firms could not resolve themselves were considered in an unbiased fashion based upon the evidence available and/or the balance of probability.
"Three years on it appears that all is far from well at FOS and that something has to be done to restore confidence in a system that so many - not just financial advisers - see as wrong.
"Confidence in a fair and unbiased Ombudsman service is the right of all who use or engage with it however, judging by the results of the survey and many advisers' expressed concerns, we are a long way from achieving this."
One adviser quoted in the report said, ""Currently there are no financial considerations paid/commitments made by the complainant to deter spurious [accusations]. However as an advisory firm we will spend an excessive amount of time and resources defending improper claims at a significant cost to us as a business in the face of potential financial penalties. We feel that from the outset of a complaint we are already adjudged guilty by the FOS and therefore have a need to prove our innocence, rather than presumed innocent until proven guilty."
