regulation sig briefing - professional associations ... briefing... · regulation sig briefing...

0

Regulation SIG Briefing Complaints, Hearings and Tribunals

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys 26 June 2013

Event Report

1

Programme

11:30 – 11:45 Registration 11:45 – 11:50 Chair’s remarks & introduction 11:50 – 12:25 Benchmarking regulatory and professional bodies on complaints and discipline

Will Hanson, Researcher, PARN 12:25 – 13:00 Roundtable discussion on the use of lay persons in tribunals and disciplinary hearings Phillip Yelland, Director of Regulation, Law Society of Scotland 13:00 – 13:45 Lunch 13:45 – 14:30 Workshop: What is a complaint?

Group discussions, sharing what constitutes a complaint for your organisation? What filtering mechanisms do you use? And how can you tell if a complaint is vexatious?

14:30 – 14:35 Comfort break 14:35 – 14:50 Case study on CIPA’s regulatory environment

Lee Davies, CEO at CIPA, discussed challenges and developments in the regulation of patent attorneys.

14:50 – 15:00 PARN update

Introducing a new online forum for the Regulation SIG. Best practice guidelines on mediation. Upcoming events and training.

15:00 – 15:15 Next meeting Planning the next SIG meeting: date, venue and topics of interest 15:15 – 15:30 Chair’s final remarks & close

2

Speakers

Phillip Yelland Director of Regulation, Law Society of Scotland (LSS) Philip Yelland is Director of Regulation at the Law Society of Scotland. He has held that post since 2006. He originally joined the Society in March 1990 and led the Complaints Team for a number of years. Prior to that he was a solicitor in private practice for five years. His current remit involves overseeing the work of the Complaints Investigation Team, liaison with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Financial Compliance and Interventions Teams. He also acts as Secretary to the new Regulatory Committee and is leading the project which will see the Society apply to become an Approved Regulator of Licensed Providers (Alternate Business Structures).

Will Hanson Researcher, PARN

Will has worked for PARN since 2008 as a Researcher. He works on all major PARN research projects, with a particular focus on professional standards, regulation, qualifications and access to the professions. He has co-authored four PARN books: E-learning for Professionals, Becoming a Professional, Raising the Value of Professional Body Membership, and Professional Standards Regulation. Will teaches PARN’s Training Courses on Professional Standards & Regulation, Updating Entry Polices and Member Engagement.

Lee Davies Chief Executive, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Lee took up the post of Chief Executive of CIPA in February 2012. Prior to this, Lee held the position of Deputy Chief Executive of the Institute for Learning, the professional body for further education teachers and trainers. Lee readily admits to having stumbled without any real direction into the world of membership and professional bodies, but likes it here very much. Lee is a frequent speaker on the membership circuit, where you will find him exploring the challenges of leading professional membership bodies in the digital age and also reflecting on his experience on the other side of the fence, governance, being the Immediate Past President of the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering.”

3

Delegate list

Organisation Name Job Title

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Adrianna McDonnell Case presenter

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Sundeep Takwani Director - Regulation

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Sheelagh Wilson Investigations Manager British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy John O'Dowd

Professional Conduct Manager

Chartered Institute of Linguists Alan Peacock Acting CEO & Director of Membership

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Lee Davies Chief Executive Officer Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Marianne Wyles Institute Secretary

Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Margaret West-Burnham Director of Governance

General Dental Council Hazel Adams Head of GDC

Health and Care Professions Council Brian James Head of Assurance & Development

Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Christine McConnell Head of Regulatory Compliance

Institute for Archaeologists Kirsten Collins Standards Compliance Manager

Institute for Learning Elaine Battson Head of Finance Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Paul Bentall Financial Ombudsman Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Nigel Howell Head of Investigation Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Matthew Ives Director Professional Conduct

Institute of Conservation Clare Meredith Committee Member

Institute of Translation & Interpreting Ibi Eso Company Secretary

Law Society of Scotland Philip Yelland Director of Regulation

Legal Services Board Paul Greening Regulatory Associate

Legal Services Board James Meyrick Regulatory Project Manager

Market Research Society Debrah Harding Chief Operating Officer

National Register of Public Service Interpreters Agnieszka Ghanem Professional Standards Manager

PARN Will Hanson Researcher

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Gordon Hockey Assistant Registrar

Royal Society of Chemistry David Barr Manager, Accreditation & Qualifications

Society and College of Radiographers Nigel Thomson Professional Officer

Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners Michael Evans Director of Governance and Professional Standards

UK Council for Psychotherapy Sultana Khanum Complaints & Conducts Manager

UK Council for Psychotherapy lan McConnon Regulations Officer

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland Laura Gow Assistant Director – Investigations

4

Notes

Benchmarking regulatory and professional bodies on complaints and discipline Will Hanson, a PARN Researcher, gave a presentation on some of the data from PARN’s 2012/2013 International Benchmarking Survey. The survey covered many areas of interest to professional bodies, governance, internal operations, membership and regulation. The data on complaints handling by professional and regulatory bodies was presented to give an overview of how complaints and hearings are handled by professional bodies around the world. Some key findings:

Most professional and regulatory bodies with regulatory powers are the only body that regulates their sector;

80% of professional and regulatory bodies deal with complaints about their members/registrants;

75% of professional and regulatory bodies base disciplinary proceedings on the ethical code ;

50% have a four stage process – Filter, Investigate, Hearing, Appeal;

Expulsion is the sanction used by the greatest number of professional bodies;

CPD is the fastest growing sanction, showing a turn towards more restorative approaches.

Question from the floor:

Q: Are professional bodies and regulators that are using a ‘quiet word’ using them at the start of the complaints process or the end?

A: Following some further analysis, it seems likely that professional bodies are using a quiet word earlier in complaints proceedings – perhaps where there is not enough evidence to carry a complaint through to a hearing. The quiet word option is twice as likely to be available (47% vs. 23%) when a body has a filtering mechanism in place early on in the process.

Roundtable discussion on the use of lay persons in tribunals and disciplinary hearings

Philip Yelland, Director of Regulation at the Law Society of Scotland, led a discussion on the issues and challenges at play in involving lay persons in tribunals and disciplinary hearings. The key points for discussion were:

What is a lay member? Is there a clear definition?

How do you recruit lay members?

What is the most effective way of training lay members?

What qualities should lay members have?

How long should lay members serve? The majority of attendees at the briefing indicated that they used at least some lay members in their complaints processes. Most commonly, a lay majority was used with other bodies using either equal numbers or a minority of lay people. What is a lay member? Is there a clear definition?

There was some debate as to what constitutes ‘lay’ for some professions. A simple definition seems to be a non-professional. But what does this mean in practice? Does this mean non-qualified, non practising, or not related to the profession at all? Would the owner of a firm in the sector (who is not a qualified practitioner) count as a lay person? Where there is no formal entry standard for the profession how do you determine who is lay?

5

How do you recruit lay members?

Lay people should be representative of the public at large, but they also need certain skills. Some professional bodies go through a rigorous selection process, involving advertising in national newspapers, interviewing candidates and making appointments. One body mentioned that they have a standing committee dedicated to overseeing the recruitment of its lay representatives. When asked to the entire group around ¼ indicated that a formal interview was a standard part of lay person recruitment.

What is the most effective way of training lay members?

Not all of the bodies present gave formal training to lay people. Training is generally provided on an annual basis and covers the process of handling complaints and a general introduction to the principles of the organisation.

‘Professional’ lay people?

One issue raised was that of ‘professional’ lay people. This was a common experience with several organisations referring to lay people who served on multiple professional bodies’ hearing panels or committees. Being a Lay representative has become their main occupation and in effect some have become professionalised to a degree. Some concerns were voiced that these panellists may be too closely aligned with the professions as a system and not sufficiently independent. However, there is also a degree of understanding and expertise that these panellists can offer which makes them attractive candidates.

What qualities should lay members have?

Independence, experience, an outside perspective, and impartiality were all mentioned as important qualities that a lay member should have. The main purpose of including lay persons in a disciplinary process is to increase the transparency and openness of the process. By allowing lay persons to sit on hearing panels or investigating committees the process is automatically more open. It is important though that lay persons do not ‘go native’.

How long should lay members serve?

Long association with an organisation can impinge on a lay person’s independence. Some organisations indicated that, in order to prevent this, lay persons serve limited three year ‘terms’ that can only be renewed once. Other organisations did not have a formal policy for how long lay persons could serve. A key difference between the organisations was how often a lay person’s services are required. Some organisations hold hundreds of hearings a year meaning a lot of contact with their lay members, while others hold just a few a year, meaning there was less contact with lay members, decreasing the risk of their impartiality being impaired.

Workshop: What is a complaint?

This workshop focussed on how professional bodies go about filtering complaints as they arrive, what the criteria are for accepting a complaint and what information about complaints is shared. It seems that filtering complaints is more common for bodies that deal with a large number of complaints. One area of difficulty is in identifying so-called ‘vexatious’ complaints. These are complaints made against a professional without basis simply to damage their reputation. Identifying these complaints is best done through assessing the evidence available to support the claims.

There are some interesting problems that were discussed regarding the publication of decisions of disciplinary panels. Putting this information online is the simplest and most open access way of sharing this information with the public. However, there can be unintended consequences. If publication is intended to be for a fixed amount of time only. Websites can be routinely cached by search engines which can mean the information continues to appear in search results even after it has been deleted. There are other ways the internet can be problematic for complaints processes, for example social media presents difficulties. There is a risk that people involved in a complaint, possibly the complainant them self might share information that is part of the investigation or hearing while it is still confidential.

6

Case study on CIPA’s regulatory environment

Lee Davies, CEO at the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), gave an insightful and colourful description of the challenges facing CIPA in its regulatory affairs. The main theme was the evolution of CIPA from a one-time ‘club’ for patent attorneys to an ‘Approved Regulator’ under the Legal Services Act, accredited by the Legal Services Board.

As part of this change CIPA, in co-operation with the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA), created the Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPReg). IPReg is an independent body steered by its own board, made up of both patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys and independent lay people. This was necessary as the Act requires professional bodies to separate its ‘regulatory activities’ from its ‘representation activities’ by creating an independent body to deliver regulation. IPReg now sets entry standards, CPD standards, and a code of conduct for both patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys. IPReg also receives and deals with complaints but is not able to give advice or guidance to professionals on an individual basis.

Lee noted the complexity of working with an independent regulator in setting policy for the profession, such as in entry standards, as compared to working with a regulatory arm within the same organisation.

7

Slides

10/07/2013

1

PARN Presentation

Benchmarking regulatory and professional bodies on complaints

and discipline

About PARN & the Regulation SIGThe Professional Associations Research Network is a

member-led organisation providing a research enriched

network for over 130 professional bodies in the UK,

Ireland, Canada and Australia

The Regulation SIG was formed in 2010 and meets twice

a year. Anyone with an interest in regulation can attend

SIG meetings. The SIG produces guidance notes and

provides a forum for discussing the big challenges in

regulation today.

PARN Information BaseGeneral surveys under the label of the International Benchmarking Survey: 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012

Ask the Network System >250 information based on member-generated questions

Research projects on complaints and discipline (current project),

the three pillars of professional standards regulation, measuring

the success of supports for professional standards.

10/07/2013

2

The Three Pillars

of Professional Standards Regulation

1. Entry Standards

• Set and develop standards of competency and conduct and

using these as criteria for admittance or registration

2. Complaints and Discipline

� Accept and investigate complaints, hold hearings based on

investigations and punish those found guilty possibly by

suspension or expulsion. Run an appeals process.

3. CPD and positive supports for ethical competence

� Set and monitor CPD policy and ensure that it is followed.

Support ethics content and provide other forms of guidance

and publicity on ethics

Why do we need THREE pillars?

Negative competence pathway and

potential regulatory options

Complaints

procedures

Warning SuspensionExpulsion

Remedial CPD

Min. standard

Below standard

Unsafe

Irredeemable

CPD

submission

Initial

qualification

Monitoring

visit/audit

10/07/2013

3

Types of complaints

…Supporting the professionalisation of professional bodies.

•CompetenceDoes the professional have the proper expertise, skill and

knowledge?

•ConductIs the professional acting in an ethical manner?

•CapabilityIs the professional healthy enough and fit to practise?


Benchmarking data from PARN International Benchmarking Survey 2012/2013

Countries


Australia

6% Canada

8%

Ireland

8%

UK

78%

Base: 127 organisations

10/07/2013

4

Regulatory powers



13.4%

22.0%

64.6%

A regulatory body A professional

association with

regulatory powers

A professional

association without

regulatory powers


Which are you?

•Regulatory body

Backed by statute, empowered by government to oversee a

profession.

•Professional body with regulatory powers

Could be accredited or approved by a regulator (co-

regulation) or a Royal Charter.

•Self-regulating professional body

No legal backing for the regulatory powers, by the profession

for the profession (and the public too).

Only regulator for your sector?


64.4%

28.9%

2.2% 4.4%

Yes No Don't know Unknown


10/07/2013

5

Who do you regulate?


64.4%

2.2%

28.9%

4.4%

Individual

practitioners

Professional

services firms

Both Unknown


Who deals with complaints?


80.3%

20.5%

2.4%

Your organisation Another body Unknown



Ethical Code

� Actionable – must; will; shall at all times

� Aspirational – should; strive to; ideally

� Accessibility (2 click rule)

� Clarity

� Consistency

10/07/2013

6


75.6%

15.7%8.7%

Yes No Unknown

Actionable Code


Stages in complaints handling


57.8%

85.3%80.4% 83.3%

Filtering Investigation Disciplinary Appeals



Mediation

35.3%

60.8%

3.9%

Yes No Unknown


10/07/2013

7

Are complaints publicised?


46.1%

52.0%

2.0%

Yes No Unknown


At what point are complaints

published?


0.0% 2.1%

91.5%

6.4%

When a complaint

is made

During

investigation

When a decision is

reached

Unknown


Sanctions


42.2%

20.6%

66.7%

83.3%

27.5%

32.4%

30.4%

57.8%

8.8%

43.1%

Remedial CPD/CPE/CE

Supervision order

Suspension

Expulsion

Name and shame

Removal of privilege

Fine

Formal warning

Public apology

'Quiet word'/Informal warning


10/07/2013

8


2009 2012 Change

Expulsion 75% Expulsion 83% +8%

Suspension 68% Suspension 67% -1%

Removal of privilege 36% Removal of privilege 32% -4%

Proof of competence 24% Supervision order 21% -3%

Fine 25% Fine 30% +5%

Additional CPD required 26% Remedial CPD/CPE/CE 42% +16%

Name and shame 38% Name and shame 27% -11%

A quiet word or warning 56% Formal warning 58% +2%

'Quiet word'/Informal

warning43% -13%

Public apology required 15% Public apology 9% -6%


The ‘quiet word’

� Useful regulatory tool for encouraging

professionals back to good practice; or,

� Outdated relic from the ‘old boys club’

era?


5.9%

90.2%

3.9%

Yes No Unknown

Compensation


10/07/2013

9


Summary

�Most professional and regulatory bodies with regulatory

powers are the only body that regulates their sector

�80% of professional and regulatory bodies deal with

complaints about their members/registrants

�75% of professional and regulatory bodies base disciplinary

proceedings on the ethical code (actionable).

�50% have a four stage process – Filter, Investigate, Hearing,

Appeal

�Expulsion is still the most common sanction

�CPD is the fastest growing sanction, showing a turn towards

more restorative approaches.


Any Questions?

regulation sig briefing - professional associations ... briefing... · regulation sig briefing...

Documents