A fiduciary has to act in a client's best interest, but they can still charge reasonable fees for their service. WE might disagree, but 1.2% is common in the industry, it's above average, but not by much.
The industry average for professional advice is about 1%. I've seen these fees in the 1.5-2% range.
The industry average for an actively managed fund is just under 1%. Normally a fiduciary will use lower cost investments, but it isn't a given.
Conclusion: total fees over 2% is actually pretty common, not ideal, but common...
These fees are above average, but not by enough to draw a regulator's attention. It's also not enough to pursue legal action unless there is something else also going on.
The advisor will probably just say they believe those funds will perform well enough to offset the high cost. Whether that happens is questionable.
Are any of these funds 'loaded' funds(a shares, b shares, c shares)? Sometimes fiduciaries will still use these and just refund the commission. So it isn't automatically bad. Some companies only use loaded funds, so if the advisor wants to use them they just refund the commission they get back to the client. C shares commonly have fees north of 1.5%, but if the advisor is rebating the cost then they might only be 0.5%. Now, if the fiduciary is charging a AUM fee AND also collecting the commissions and/or 12b-1 fees that is questionable. I'm not sure if they can do it. I am sure it would have to be disclosed that they were doing it.