I have been using an flat hourly-rate financial planner for a few years. He has had amazing success with 2 of my uncles, neither of whom earned as much as I do during their careers, and both of whom are retired and seem to have absolutely no financial worries about spending including tons of travel, golf, constant fancy restaurants, expensive wine, etc. He is very clear about being free from conflicts of interests and works exclusively under flat rate terms. I have met with him annually for the last 4 years or so, paying for between 2-6 hours of his time depending on how complex things got that year (stock options, house purchase, etc).
In general, I think he's done well by me including moving me to Vanguard before MMM confirmed this choice. However, in the big picture, these costs do add up and I plan to rely on his services much less frequently going forward as my own knowledge and confidence increases. He's definitely not of a mustachian persuasion by default, but I have explained my goals to him and he adapts pretty well. mint.com makes is trivial to compare his guidance to the index, and so far, as you would expect, he's not outperforming the index.
So to answer your question, YES, I think it is a great idea and something I would consider. There is value in reviewing the exact details of your situation with the appropriate expert mentor who is on the same wavelength WRT FIRE.
I hope to ween myself off advice, but I do have friends and colleagues I would love to refer to a mustachian financial advisor as opposed to someone who will guide them toward un-badassly goals.