[Skip to content]

Sign up for our daily newsletter
The Actuary The magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries
.

Determination report for adjudication panel: John Patrick Quinlivan

On 26 February 2010 the Adjudication Panel considered a complaint that the Respondent:
a) for the CPD year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 failed to declare the appropriate CPD Category as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Schemes contained with the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 12) at page 7; the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 13) at pages 7 and 12; and the CPD Handbook 2007/08 (version 14) at pages 8, 9 and 13
b) for the CPD year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 failed to carry out the appropriate CPD activities as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 12) at pages 8, 9, 12 and 13; the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 13) at pages 8, 9, 12 and 13; and the CPD Handbook 2007/2008 (version 14) at pages 9, 10, 13 and 14
c) for the CPD year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 failed to maintain an online record of CPD undertaken as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 12) at pages 10, 13 and 23; the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 13) at pages 8, 9, 10, 13 and 23; and the CPD Handbook 2007/2008 (version 14) at pages 9, 10, 11, 14 and 24
d) failed to co-operate appropriately with the Investigating Actuary in the conduct of this investigation, by failing to respond to requests for information from the Case Officer acting on behalf of the Investigating Actuary, in terms of Rule 3.11 of the Institute of Actuaries’ Disciplinary Scheme, having regard to Rules 1.9 and 1.10.

In failing to do any or all of the above he failed to maintain and observe the standards of conduct expected of a member, contrary to paragraph 2.1 of version 2.3 of the Professional Conduct Standards and paragraphs 1.2 and 2.1 of version 3.0 of the Professional Conduct Standards, which is therefore Misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 (b) of the Disciplinary Scheme for the Institute of Actuaries as constituting conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, or competence that other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member.

Determination
Having carefully considered the case report and the appendices submitted by the Investigating Actuary, the Panel determined that the case report discloses a prima facie case of Misconduct in respect of all four of the allegations made against the Respondent in accordance with rule 4.2(a) of the Institute’s disciplinary scheme and that the Respondent should be invited to accept that there has been Misconduct and to accept the following sanctions, namely:
>> a reprimand and
>> a fine of £4,400.

The Panel’s reasons were as follows:
1. The Panel regarded the Respondent’s failure to comply with the investigation, as required by the Institute’s disciplinary scheme, as extremely serious. The failure to comply with an investigation frustrates the Profession’s ability to undertake its regulatory role. The Panel considered that it was unprofessional of the Respondent not to cooperate with his professional body in a regulatory matter and that this behaviour falls below the standard of conduct that can reasonably be expected of members by other members of the Profession and the public.
2. Despite the Respondent’s failure to reply to any communications or cooperate with the investigation, the Panel was satisfied that communications had been received by the Respondent and that the Profession had supplied sufficient opportunity for the Respondent to comply. The Panel determined that the Respondent should be invited to accept a fine of £1000 in respect of allegation (d).
3. The Panel observed that the Respondent’s failure to engage with the disciplinary process made it difficult to ascertain whether or not he had completed the required CPD. There was strong evidence in the case report and the appendices that the Respondent was correctly classified as a category 2 actuary and that he was actively practising in such a capacity over the relevant period. He was therefore required to complete a minimum of 15 hours of CPD.

In part because of the absence of evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel determined that there was prima face evidence that the Respondent had failed to complete the required CPD to satisfy category 2 classification. The Panel determined that the Respondent should be invited to accept a fine of £3000 in respect of allegation (b).
4. The Panel noted that the Profession is committed to enforcing the CPD Scheme to ensure public confidence in the Profession. The Panel thought it reasonable for both other members and the general public to expect all actuaries to comply with the CPD requirements of the Profession.
5. The Respondent had been sent a personal letter on 11 February 2008 warning that failure to comply with his CPD obligations for the current year would result in a referral to the disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Panel determined that the Respondent should be invited to accept a fine of £200 in respect of each of allegations (a) and (c), in accordance with the Disciplinary Board guideline.
6. The Panel noted that the Respondent has complied with the CPD requirements for the CPD year 2008/09 and recorded sufficient CPD to satisfy the requirements for category 2.