Defending ICAEW and ACCA members through investigation, consent orders and Tribunal
An accountancy disciplinary case is decided long before the hearing. It is decided in what you say in response to the first letter from the Conduct Department, and in whether you accept the consent order you are offered.
Both of those decisions are made by most accountants without advice, and both are extremely difficult to undo.
Who we act for
- ICAEW members, affiliates and firms, including in fixed penalty and consent order matters
- ACCA members, affiliates, students and firms
- Accountants facing FRC investigation under the Audit Enforcement Procedure or the Accountancy Scheme
- Members facing interim orders suspending a practising certificate or licence pending outcome
- Accountants facing parallel criminal, insolvency or director disqualification proceedings
What triggers disciplinary action
ICAEW. Under the Disciplinary Bye-laws you are liable to disciplinary action for: misconduct — any act or omission likely to bring discredit on you, the Institute or the profession; professional incompetence falling significantly short of the standards reasonably expected; breach of the bye-laws or regulations; failure to comply with a disciplinary order; conviction of an indictable offence; director disqualification; carrying on regulated activity without authorisation; failure to comply with an information notice; and certain insolvency circumstances.
Two of those deserve attention because they catch people who have done nothing wrong professionally: personal insolvency and director disqualification are freestanding grounds, independent of your work for clients.
ACCA operates an equivalent framework under its Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations, covering members, affiliates, students and firms.
How an ICAEW case runs
1. Assessment
The Conduct Department assesses whether the complaint discloses potential liability to disciplinary action. A complaint may be closed without investigation where more than three years have passed since the events, unless investigation is necessary to protect the public or is in the public interest.
2. Investigation
The Conduct Department investigates and reports to the Conduct Committee.
3. The Conduct Committee
It applies a threshold test — whether there is a realistic prospect that the allegation would be found proved. Note this is a lower test than the standard applied at the eventual hearing, which is why cases that ultimately fail can still be referred. The Committee may dismiss, adjourn for further investigation, offer a consent order, or refer formal allegations to the Tribunals Committee.
4. The consent order decision
This is the pivotal moment in most cases. If you do not agree in writing within 28 days of service, the matter is referred to the Tribunals Committee.
A consent order avoids a public hearing, avoids the costs of contesting, and gives certainty. But it is a published regulatory finding against you, and it forecloses the argument that the allegation was not made out. Whether to accept one is a genuine strategic decision that turns on the strength of the evidence, the sanction on offer, the costs exposure of contesting, and what the published wording will say. It should not be taken on a 28-day clock without advice.
There is also a fixed penalty process for inadvertent or minor breaches with no aggravating features and a full admission — typically the lowest penalty category with a 30% discount and no costs.
5. Tribunal, and appeal
A Tribunal hears contested allegations, with onward appeal to an Appeal Panel.
- Standard of proof: the balance of probabilities.
- Hearings are held in public, save in exceptional circumstances or on interim order applications.
- Findings are published as soon as practicable, naming you, unless exceptional circumstances apply, and appear on the searchable ICAEW disciplinary database.
Sanctions
ICAEW — for individuals: exclusion from membership; suspension; withdrawal of a practising certificate or licence; severe reprimand; reprimand; financial penalty; training or remedial orders; costs orders; and caution. For firms, additionally a prohibition on using the description "Chartered Accountants".
On fines — a point competitors get wrong. There is no maximum fine in the ICAEW bye-laws. The Disciplinary Sanctions Guidance in force from 1 January 2026 sets six financial-penalty starting points, from £2,000 up to £25,000, expressly adjustable up or down and for inflation. They are starting points, not caps.
ACCA — no further action; admonishment; reprimand; severe reprimand; fine; compensation to the complainant up to £1,000; fee waiver; suspension of or conditions on a certificate or licence; and exclusion from membership. Students face removal from the student register and examination disqualification.
ACCA's fine cap has gone. For cases where the report of disciplinary actions was first served on or after 1 July 2024, the Committee may impose "such sum as it considers appropriate" — there is no numerical maximum. Cases served before that date remain capped at £50,000.
Costs. Both bodies can order you to pay their costs where allegations are proved. ACCA may also be ordered to contribute to your costs where allegations are not proved — worth knowing before deciding whether to contest.
Exclusion and getting back. ACCA requires a minimum of 12 months before applying for readmission, extendable to five years. Readmission is not automatic.
When the FRC takes over
The Financial Reporting Council operates two regimes that can supersede your professional body's process.
- The Audit Enforcement Procedure covers statutory audit work for Public Interest Entities — listed entities, credit institutions, insurance undertakings — plus larger AIM companies and Lloyd's syndicates. Other audit investigations are delegated to ICAEW and ACCA, but the FRC can reclaim an investigation if it chooses.
- The Accountancy Scheme covers non-audit misconduct where the case raises important issues affecting the public interest — significant numbers of people affected, substantial financial loss, or conduct undermining confidence in financial reporting or corporate governance.
FRC sanctions are materially more serious: unlimited fines, severe reprimand, repayment of client fees, restrictions on the work you may do, prohibition from conducting statutory audits, withdrawal of registration or practising certificate, and exclusion from membership of your professional body. Under the Audit Enforcement Procedure the FRC can also declare that an audit report does not satisfy the relevant requirements, and impose temporary prohibition from audit firm management or PIE directorships.
The FRC's revised Audit Enforcement Procedure came into force on 1 July 2026, introducing broader routes to resolution.
And one thing to strike from older advice: the FRC is not being replaced. The Government abandoned the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill in January 2026, so the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (AR
Appeals
| STEP | LIMIT |
|---|---|
| ICAEW consent order — agree in writing | 28 days from service |
| ICAEW complaint may be closed as stale | more than 3 years since the events |
| ACCA permission to appeal | 21 days from service of the written reasons |
| ACCA review of a closure or "rest on file" decision | 30 days |
| ACCA exclusion — readmission | minimum 12 months, maximum 5 years |
ACCA appeals require permission, granted where the appeal has a real prospect of success, on grounds including error of fact or law, failure to consider relevant evidence, new evidence not previously available, a disproportionate or unreasonable order, and serious procedural irregularity. There is no appeal solely on costs.
Beyond the internal appeal there is no statutory appeal to the courts from an ICAEW or ACCA decision. The residual route is judicial review — which is a challenge to the lawfulness of the process, not a second opinion on the merits. That is precisely why the internal stages have to be got right first time.
How we defend these cases
- The first response. Framing the answer to the Conduct Department before positions harden, and dealing properly with the difference between an error, an incompetence allegation and a misconduct allegation — they attract very different outcomes and are routinely conflated in complaints.
- The consent order decision, taken on a proper assessment of the evidence rather than on relief that a hearing can be avoided — including negotiating the published wording.
- Costs exposure, which is often the outcome that does the most financial damage and is frequently larger than the fine.
- Publication, which is permanent and searchable. What a published finding says about you matters for as long as your career lasts.
- Parallel proceedings — criminal investigation, insolvency, director disqualification and employment claims commonly arrive together. We handle those strands in the same firm.
Frequently asked questions
Take advice before you reply
Related: regulatory defence solicitors · criminal defence · employment law
About Regulation Resolution Solicitors
Regulation Resolution Solicitors is a specialist regulatory defence practice. We act for regulated professionals facing investigation, disciplinary proceedings and fitness to practise allegations before their regulators and professional tribunals.
Regulatory defence is the whole of what we do, not a sideline to a general practice. Our lawyers have worked inside the regulators themselves, and we apply that understanding of how cases are built, assessed and decided from the first written response onwards — the stage at which regulatory cases are most often won or lost, long before any hearing.
Written by Regulation Resolution Solicitors. Last reviewed: 11th September 2026
This page is general information about the position in England, not legal advice on your situation.
