As those members who have been involved in an investigation by the CA ANZ or NZICA disciplinary bodies will be aware, the procedure can be long and costly.

Within the revised CA ANZ by-laws and NZICA rules that uphold the integrity and trust in the designation, a new process has been established which allows for the expedition of investigations when the disciplinary bodies are considering certain types of member misconduct, including adverse binding determinations.

Why the change?

“The expedition procedures have been established to allow the disciplinary bodies to deal with certain offences more efficiently, if it considers it appropriate,” says Kate Dixon, leader of the professional conduct team in Australia.

“This assists in meeting the aim for the resolution of complaints in a fair, speedy and simple manner, while being consistent with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, and taking into account the public interest.

“The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) and, if the matter is serious enough, the Disciplinary Tribunal, will consider the most appropriate, efficient and timely process to investigate and determine a complaint.”

When will the new process apply?

Dixon says the expedited process can be applied to a variety of offences.

“Most significantly, it will apply to offences such as criminal convictions, insolvency events, adverse or unfavourable binding determinations, firm events and failure to comply with a reasonable and lawful direction of CA ANZ or NZICA.”

In the case of a criminal conviction for example, the disciplinary bodies will not revisit the basis for the conviction.

“The conviction is a fact, unless there is a dispute about the identity of the member, and the expedition provisions say that the disciplinary bodies can go straight to considering the appropriate sanction.”

Saving time and money

If the matter is dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal on an expedited basis, this means that instead of a three-member Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, it can be put to a single tribunal member and carried out as a hearing on the papers.

“This is going to be a much more streamlined and less costly process, which will also be less stressful for the member involved,” Dixon says.

“Members in this situation have already been through an extensive process by a court or alternative regulator, they don’t need to go through that again with CA ANZ. Instead, they can go through this new process much more quickly.

“The member can make submissions on mitigating factors before a decision about the appropriate sanction is made.”

Should the member wish to have the case considered by a full tribunal, they would need to establish that there is a genuine dispute about whether or not they are the subject of the original matter.

More efficient for members

Rebecca Stickney, leader of the professional conduct team in New Zealand, agrees that members have an interest in keeping the costs to a minimum.

“An expedited process could also be used for more complex disciplinary hearings, for example following a complaint from a client, where the member accepts responsibility and admits the offences alleged against them.”

Even if they don’t admit the offences, there can be efficiencies in a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing if a member enters into an agreement about the evidence.

“This could be an agreed summary of facts or agreeing to the PCC case file being submitted to the Disciplinary Tribunal.”

Weigh up your response

Stickney advises members to think carefully when they’re considering how they are going to respond to a complaint.

“Think through what the issues are and whether you genuinely dispute them.” She says a bit of objectivity or insight about your own conduct can go a long way.

“Consider the issues without emotion and work out what your strategy is, just as you might an issue facing one of your clients or a colleague.”

Stickney says that, at times, members can miscalculate the issues and argue things that should not be contested, or they might do so without the benefit of legal advice.

“If you have substantive hearings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, that can lead to a very expensive bill if you are found wanting at the end.”

Due process maintained

Stickney says the expedited process does not mean members don’t get to explain their side of the story or put forward their case.

“If they have evidence or statements in mitigation that will all still be considered, but if there are things that are just obvious, that you’ve done that wrong, it’s in your interest to formally acknowledge that.”