None of our members advance lookin...

None of our members advance looking for trouble with the Professional leadership Enquiry Committee (PCEC), and when the PCEC does proceed calling, most members take a sensible approach and provide their sated cooperation. They don't need to be reminded that, as a condition of Institute membership, they have agreed to abide by the agency of the Bylaws and Rules of Professional Conduct-among them command 104 (Requirement to Reply in Writing) and dominion 105 (Requirement to Cooperate)-or that the Accountants (Chartered) Act, section 20 (2) requires abounding cooperation with PCEC investigations.

Unfortunately, a not many members choose not to cooperate, mainly from trying to stall an investigation. nevertheless such tactics are always in vain and will sole end up costing them more in the lengthy run!

Why stalling only makes it worse

There are several valid reasons for which a member might require additional time to deal with an enquiry. The PCEC will accept any plausible solicit for a delay, as lengthy as this delay will not impose the public at risk.

However, sometimes members cause an investigation to drag in succession for months by making repeated, and destitute commitments to respond "shortly."

In individual such case involving problems with review engagements, the PCEC determined that a member had breached empire 201.1 (Maintenance of Reputation of the Profession) and empire 206 (Professional Standards). Had the member entirely cooperated with the investigation from the beginning, the sanctions would likely have proceeded in a $2,000 fine and take away froms of $3,000; but because the member instead chose to breach direction 105, the PCEC recommended a $3500 fine and take away froms of $4,200.

When lawyers are brought into the mix

The PCEC proces is not a hearing in the legal understanding but members are never discouraged from obtaining legal representation. Unfortunately, while the hiring of a lawyer is sometimes appropriate, it can also appeal to a not many members intent on derailing the investigative process

In instances similar as these, a member's lawyer will frequently adopt the adage: "A virtuous offence is the best defence" They shed tears foul at every opportunity, alleging that the PCEC has no jurisdiction; the staff and PCEC members are biased; the complainant did not make this allegation; ad nauseam. The PCEC has heard all these diversionary arguments before, yet rarely do these arguments have any merit. In the extremity the usual result of these tactics is increased expenses for everyone involved.

Claiming confidentiality is not an option

Some members argue that responding to the PCEC supplication for information would breach client confidentiality. single member actually asked a client to write a note threatening him with litigation in order to avoid complying with the PCEC (Ironically, the PCEC had asked for the client information believing it would support the member's position.)

Alas, for these members, the Act does not allow members to refuse to comply onward the grounds of confidentiality, and it also gives the PCEC the authority to force the production of records. Further, mastership 208.4 (Confidentiality-Professional Conduct Enquiry and Practice Review & Eicensing) specifically allows disclosure of client information to the PCEC

A novel PCEC strategy

In the past, when it was established that a member had been deliberately employing stalling tactics, the PCEC simply carried upon with the investigation as best it could adding orders 104 and 105 to the list of breaches. Unfortunately, this approach did not discourage plainly obstructive members, and investigations would drag upon and on.

Recently however, the PCEC adopted a of recent origin strategy to deal with the hardly any most difficult cases of non-cooperation: It now authorizes a fresh investigation relating to a member's failure to suit or cooperate, at which point the necessary information to reach a determination in succession this issue has already been obtained. If the member then does not accept the resulting Determination and Recommendation requiring cooperation or if the behaviour persists, there will be able to endure evidence to support putting the matter before a panel of the Discipline Tribunal. At this stage, the PCEC may extremely well decide that the member is ungovernable and follow his or her expulsion. Then steady if the Tribunal does not thrust out [i]or[/i] forth the member, the unresolved investigation will still have to be dealt with.

Final thoughts

The PCEC has no sinister objectives-the sole goal it places higher than protecting the proper of our profession is protecting the public. It has a mandate to deal with investigations in an expeditious manner, and should not have to tolerate inappropriate delays and what amounts to reprehensible convoy And not only is abounding cooperation essential to the effectiveness of our self-regulatory regime, case history present to views us that a member who makes a mistake, acknowledges it, accepts appropriate sanctions, and prompts on is unlikely to through all ages come before the PCEC again.

Comment or questions? Contact me at utley@ica.bc.ca.

Please note: The make contenteds of this article are no other than for the general guidance of readers. The PCEC deals with each case individually, based upon its specific facts and circumstances.