Professional Conduct Committee

Summary

This inquiry concerned the failure of an architect to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance as required by Principle 2.12 of the Architects’ Code of Conduct. The Architect admitted to the breach, which was deemed professional misconduct under the Code.

The Architect was employed on a full-time basis by a multinational company. In his spare time, he provided a limited scope of services to the public. The services provided were limited to planning applications and planning drawings. The complaint arose after the Architect informed the RIAI that a client intended to sue him, and due to the limited nature of the services provided he did not hold conventional indemnity cover but considered himself “self-insured”.

The Architect initially believed that his “self-insurance” met the requirements of the Code, but the Registrar rejected this, requesting details of his scheme of “self-insurance” to assess its adequacy. The Architect later acknowledged that what he believed to be “self-insurance” did not meet the requirements of the Code and he sought PII quotations.

At the inquiry, the Architect admitted to lacking adequate PII cover during the stated period and admitted professional misconduct.

The PCC found the allegations proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the Architect’s admissions and legal advice. The breach of Principles 2.12 and 2.13 was established.

The PCC admonished the Architect, citing the importance of PII for consumer protection. Though the conduct was serious, mitigating factors led to a sanction at the admonishment level.

The mitigating circumstances included that the conduct was self-reported, the Architect was cooperative, moved promptly to obtain insurance, had an unblemished record, and demonstrated insight with a low risk of recurrence.

The Architect requested anonymity in publication to protect his livelihood, and the Committee, by majority, granted this request as proportionate given the circumstances.

The above summary is not part of the PCC’s Findings or Sanction Report.

Inquiry by the Professional Conduct Committee of the RIAI
Under Part 6 of the Building Control Act 2007

FINDINGS REPORT

Allegations

There was one allegation in the Notice of Inquiry, containing two sub-allegations. The allegation was as follows:

“That you, whilst an Architect registered with the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland:

(1)   Between on or around 6 March 2022 and 21 March 2025 failed to have adequate and appropriate professional indemnity cover in place in accordance with Principle 2.12 of the Architects' Code of Conduct dated 26 July 2013.”

This allegation was pursued on grounds of professional misconduct on the basis that the conduct constituted a breach of Principles 2.12 and/or 2.13 of the Architect’s Code of Conduct dated 26 July 2013 (“the Code”). The other allegations of professional misconduct set out in paragraphs G(2) and G(3) were not pursued.

This Report is prepared pursuant to section 57 (10) of the Building Control Act 2007. It deals with the nature of the complaint, the evidence before the Committee, and the Committee’s opinion as to whether a case of professional misconduct is established or not.

Background

A complaint was made in writing by the Registrar of Architects (“the Complainant”) on  3 January 2025 against the Architect. The complaint arose from an email sent by the Architect to the RIAI on 4 December 2024, in which he informed the RIAI that he was practising without insurance.

In the email, the Architect explained that he was working as an Architect in secondary employment around once a week. He explained that he operated as a sole trader under a business name. He stated that his scope of service included design, planning and working drawings, but did not include contract administration. The Architect said the cost of insurance cover was not commercially viable when compared with his annual revenue and, because of what he considered to be a limited risk profile, he proceeded on a quasi-self-insured basis. He stated that he had recently been subject to a claim by a client and that he wished to keep the RIAI informed that he would need to declare to the client’s solicitor that there was no professional indemnity insurance cover.

This email from the Architect prompted the Registrar to make a complaint to the PCC alleging that the Architect breached, and continued to be in breach of, Principle 2.12 of the Code, which requires Architects in architectural practice to ensure that they have adequate and appropriate professional indemnity cover in place, and to confirm that cover annually if required by the RIAI.

In response to the complaint by letter dated 24 January 2025, the Architect stated that he was self-insured, which in his opinion satisfied the requirement under the Code. He argued that the Code was silent as to the type of cover required and as to any minimum amount of cover, and he contended that the objective of the Code was to ensure that clients did not suffer loss from breach of contract or negligence.

By letter dated 4 February 2025, the Registrar rejected the proposition that self-insurance met the requirements of the Code. The Registrar contended that an Architect could not circumvent the requirement for adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance by claiming to be self-insured. The Registrar noted that the Architect had not provided details of his self-insurance scheme and requested information to assess the legitimacy, adequacy and appropriateness of the alleged scheme.

A further response was submitted by the Architect on 21 February 2025. This provided details as to the nature of the “self-insurance” which he had in place. The letter concluded, however, by acknowledging that the RIAI might not share his perspective as to the adequacy of this arrangement and indicated that he was endeavouring to procure PII quotations.

The matter ultimately came before the PCC on 21 March 2025. The PCC formed the opinion that there was a real prospect of the facts alleged in the complaint being established at inquiry and that, if established, the facts could amount to professional misconduct.

In an email to the RIAI of 20 June 2025, the Architect stated that he did not wish to appeal the prima facie decision of the PCC, but wished to bring the matter to a conclusion and requested “advice regarding next steps”. Following further exchanges between the Architect and Solicitors acting for the RIAI, the Architect provided confirmation that he had obtained PII cover.

Procedural Matters

When the hearing opened, certain agreed amendments were made to the Notice of Inquiry, and in particular the relevant timeline during which the Architect did not hold PII cover.

The Committee was informed that the Architect was making factual admissions that he failed to have adequate and appropriate professional indemnity cover in place between 6 March 2022 to 21 March 2025. He was also making full admissions of professional misconduct in respect of Paragraph G(1) of the Notice of Inquiry, namely breach of Principles 2.12 and 2.13 of the Code. The Committee was informed that the Registrar would not lead evidence in respect of the allegations at Paragraphs G(2) and G(3) of the Notice of Inquiry.

Burden and standard of proof

It was accepted that the burden rested on the Registrar to prove the allegations to the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt.

However, in circumstances where admissions were made by the Architect to the allegation, the Committee were advised that the Registrar had discharged his obligations in this regard.

Evidence

No evidence was adduced before the Committee in circumstances where admissions were made. However, Counsel for the Registrar took the Committee through the agreed core book of documents, setting out the relevant background to the matter, as well as the material aspects of the expert reports which the Registrar had received from an Expert Witness Chartered Insurance Broker and an Expert Witness Architect.

Legal Advice

At the close of the oral hearings and subsequent to closing submissions from the parties, the Legal Assessor indicated the terms in which he proposed to advise the Committee as regards the presumption of innocence; the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applicable to the allegation; and the duty of the Committee to give reasons for its decision and to produce a report in accordance with section 57 (10) of the Building Control Act 2007. The legal advice was accepted by Counsel for the Registrar.

In coming to its determinations, findings, and recommendations, the Committee had regard to the oral evidence, the documentation proven in evidence and the submissions of the parties. Specific aspects of the oral evidence, documentation and submissions are referred to where necessary below in setting out the decision of the Committee. The determinations, findings and recommendations set out below were in every respect unanimous, save where otherwise appears.

Findings

Allegation:

 “That you, whilst an Architect registered with the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland:

(1)   Between on or around 6 March 2022 and 21 March 2025 failed to have adequate and appropriate professional indemnity cover in place in accordance with Principle 2.12 of the Architects' Code of Conduct dated 26 July 2013.”

Was this allegation proved beyond reasonable doubt as to fact?

The Committee finds that this allegation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to fact by reason of the admissions which have been made by the Architect, with the benefit of legal advice.

Has it been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts as proven amount to professional misconduct?

The Committee is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Architect’s conduct amounted to a breach of Principle 2.12 and 2.13 of the Code, by reasons of the admissions which have been made, with the benefit of legal advice.

The Committee notes that the allegations of professional misconduct under G(2) and G(3) of the Notice of Inquiry were not pursued by the Registrar.

During the course of the hearing, the Committee noted that, in circumstances where admissions had been made, both parties were waiving their entitlement to an appeal in relation to this decision and expressed the desire for the Committee to proceed to deal with the issue of sanction immediately. Following legal advice received from the Legal Assessor, the Committee pronounced its decision orally and acceded to this request. The Committee has dealt with the issue of sanction by way of separate report.

SANCTION REPORT

Background

On 9 July 2026, the Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) determined that the Architect was guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the following allegation:

“That you, whilst an Architect registered with the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland:

(1)           Between on or around 6 March 2022 and 21 March 2025 failed to have adequate and appropriate professional indemnity cover in place in accordance with Principle 2.12 of the Architects' Code of Conduct dated 26 July 2013.”

This Committee determined that the Architect was guilty of professional misconduct on the basis that the conduct constituted a breach of Principles 2.12 and/or 2.13 of the Architect’s Code of Conduct dated 26 July 2013 (“the Code”). The reasons for the Committee’s decision are set out in detail in the report dated 9 July 2026 (“the Findings Report”). As set out in the Findings Report, in circumstances where admissions were made, both parties indicated that they wished to waive their entitlement to appeal this decision and expressed the desire for the Committee to proceed to deal with the issue of sanction immediately.

Hearing

Counsel for the Registrar outlined the sanctions available to the Committee. She stated that the Registrar was not canvassing for a sanction beyond censure but was not advocating for any particular sanction below that.

Counsel for the Architect set out several matters in mitigation, including the fact that the Architect’s conduct came about because of a self-declaration to the RIAI and his full admissions.

The Committee received legal advice from the Legal Assessor, in particular in relation to the relevant sanctioning principles which should be applied by the Committee in reaching its decision, as well as the issues which were relevant to publication. The legal advice was accepted by both parties and the Committee indicated that it was prepared to accept same.

Sanction

The Committee determines that the Architect should be admonished pursuant to section 58 (2) (a) of the Building Control Act 2007 in relation to his conduct. 

In reaching this decision on sanction, the Committee has had regard to the totality of the evidence and the finding of professional misconduct and adopted a stepwise approach to the issue of sanction, looking at the least serious sanction available first.

The requirement to maintain adequate and appropriate PII cover is a central consumer protection requirement under the Code. This requirement exists to protect clients and the public where claims arise from the provision of architectural services. In the absence of an Architect having adequate insurance cover, clients are placed at considerable risk that legitimate claims for compensation are not met. Practicing without adequate cover puts consumers at risk and undermines public confidence in the profession. The fact that the Architect was engaging in the practice of architecture on a part-time basis, and secondary to his main form of employment, is irrelevant to this core obligation.

The Architect’s initial position to the RIAI was that his “self-insurance” – including a so-called indemnity fund of €100,000 – addressed the requirement of the Code to have professional indemnity cover. The Committee is entirely satisfied this was an unsustainable proposition. The Committee entirely agrees with the experts instructed on behalf of the Registrar, that the model operated by the Architect failed to meet either the spirit or letter of the RIAI Code. It also must be noted that the Architect’s non-compliance persisted over a substantial period, namely from 6 March 2022 to 21 March 2025.

The Committee views the conduct here as on the mid to upper range of the spectrum of seriousness and in other circumstances would have been inclined towards imposing a sanction beyond censure.

However, the Committee must have regard to the principle of proportionality and the mitigating factors in the case, the most relevant of which appear to be as follows:

1. The matter came to the RIAI’s attention because of the Architect’s email to the RIAI on 4 December 2024;
2. The Architect appears to have misunderstood the relevant provisions of the Code, and there was no allegation his conduct arose by reason of an intentional or deliberate breach on his part;
3. While the Architect initially adopted the (misconceived) position that his purported self-insurance arrangement satisfied the relevant provisions of the Code, he moved from this position quite promptly and undoubtedly was very co-operative with the RIAI process. In this regard, the Architect began to make endeavours to obtain compliant PII cover from February 2025 (i.e. shortly after the complaint was made) and ultimately obtained such cover in mid-September 2025;
4. The Architect has demonstrated considerable insight, including by making full admissions, and has committed to maintain proper cover / run-off cover in the future. The Committee believes that the risk of repetition is low;
5. The Architect has an unblemished record;
6.  In light of the Architect’s admissions and proposed steps to ensure appropriate coverage in future, the Registrar agreed that it considered the appropriate sanction to be advice, admonishment and/or censure

Publication

As to the question of publication, the Architect’s solicitor asked the Committee that his name be anonymised in any publication of the findings pursuant to section 57 (11) of the Act. The Architect’s solicitor submitted that any publication of his name would be disproportionate in the overall circumstances, noting that the Architect was employed and wished to minimise the potential prejudicial effect of this finding on his livelihood. The Registrar was neutral on this issue.

On balance, and with some considerable reluctance, the Committee (by a majority) has decided to accede to the Architect’s application and directs that the Architect’s name should be anonymised in any publication of the findings pursuant to section 57 (11) of the Act or otherwise. The majority of the Committee was ultimately persuaded, on the particular facts of this case and having regard to the significant mitigation referenced above, that any publication of the Architect’s name would be disproportionate.