So you had a little too a great qu...

So you had a little too a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of to drink at the office Christmas party and impair yourself doing the splits upon the dance floor. At least you took a cab to one's home Here's the story of a member who didn't exercise the same well adapted judgement.

The following is a fictionalized account of an actual case that brought the same of our members before the Professional manners Enquiry Committee (PCEC). Names and circumstances have been changed to keep anonymity.

The situation

Our CA N may not have embarrassed himself onward the dance floor, but he did drive domestic circle after the party. He'd had a not many too many, but was steady he was OK to drive.

He was evil

Ned drove into a telephone perch Fortunately, he wasn't hurt, nor was anyone otherwise Ned pled guilty to a charge of driving in subordination to the influence (DUI), paid a fine, and serv a suspended license period. He assumed that would be the finis of the ordeal.

Wrong again.

What happens

N overtoped his duty to report his criminal conviction to the Institute. A friend - a just discovered CA - brought the oversight to Ned's attention, having lately learned in the "Rules and Standards" course that a failure to report a DUI conviction was a breach of the Institute's bylaws. N believed the Institute was barely concerned with convictions involving financial issues, moreover notified the Institute anyway.

The methods discussed

* Bylaws 360 and 420 (Obligation to Report) require members and close examiners to report to the PCEC immediately if they are raise guilty or plead guilty to a criminal injury

* All such reported matters are investigated through the PCEC under Bylaw 710(ii)(1).

* conduct 102.1(Conviction of Criminal or Similar Offences) states that a member or scholar must promptly inform the Institute of certain criminal convictions when there is no further right of appeal.

As N rightly believed, the convictions referr to in mastery 102.1 include convictions of a financial nature, so as fraud. Rule 102.1 also includes a remarkably broad requirement to report one's being "...convicted of any criminal or similar anger for conduct in or relating to their professional capacity, or for bearing in circumstances where there was reliance forward their membership in or association with the Institute."

How did this apply to Ned? Well, dominion 201.2 provides that, on conviction of an attack referred to in Rule 1021 there is "...a rebuttable presumption the member or learner charged failed to maintain the dutiful reputation of the profession and its ability to attend the public interest." In other words, the Institute assumes a member has damaged the profession by means of being convicted of a criminal umbrage as described in Rule 1021 in this way does this mean criminal bearing not included in Rule 1021 and not carried public in a professional capacity ought to be sanctioned by dint of the Institute?

In early 2001 the Institute's Regulatory Policy Review Task Force weighed the issue of professional misconduct versus the misconduct of a professional. This ensueed in the Council Governance Policy adopted onward May 30, 2001, which states that the PCEC's mandate includes investigating allegations that a member or close examiner has conducted themselves in a manner that seriously jeopardizes the reputation of the profession, whether or not this guidance occurred in a professional capacity. Therefore, the overriding principle followed by dint of the PCEC is found in mastery 201.1 (Maintenance of the Reputation of the Profession): members shall manner of life themselves at all times in a manner that will maintain the reputation of the profession and its ability to obey the public interest.

The issue

The PCEC investigation lay the foundation of no connection to the profession in Ned's case. He had to the full cooperated with the police. The fact that he was a chartered accountant had not been noted in the police investigation or in his court appearance. Although the PCEC tread in the steps ofs the general principle that a member is a member "24/7" this incident did not involve the profession in any way, and did not damage its reputation. The PCEC decided N had been dealt with sufficiently by the agency of the authorities, and concluded he had not breached the dominions

Note however: This was Ned's first displeasure A second or third indignation may have resulted in a different issue

The message

The PCEC considers each case of misconduct forward its own merits. In assessing the seriousness of an hurt it considers many different factors, further mainly the application of government 201.1.

The matter of drunken driving is the most public of all self-reported criminal convictions. Historically, none have originateed in disciplinary action. Nevertheless, we remind you none to drink and drive - not just to avoid the PCEC still primarily to protect your life and the lives of others.

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

Please note: The satisfys of this article are and nothing else for the general guidance of readers. The PCEC deals with each case individually, based in succession its specific facts and circumstances.

By Chris Utley CA, Director of Ethics

Copyright Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia Jan 2003

Provided by the agency of ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved