Paul Treacy, director of Paul Treacy Architects, has been permanently removed from the Architects Register after helping a friend cheat on her RIBA Part 3 professional qualification examination. The Architects Registration Board (ARB) found that Treacy violated professional standards by engaging in academic misconduct and failing to maintain proper boundaries between his professional and personal relationships.
The case involves an unnamed woman who was completing her RIBA Part 3 qualification under Treacy's supervision as both her office mentor and RIBA exam supervisor. According to the ARB, Treacy developed a romantic and/or personal relationship with the candidate, which he failed to disclose to the appropriate authorities. This undisclosed relationship created a significant conflict of interest that compromised the integrity of the examination process.
Treacy's misconduct included multiple serious violations of professional standards. He drafted and amended the woman's case study before she submitted it to the RIBA, essentially completing her work for her. More egregiously, Treacy opened a Part 3 exam paper in advance of the official examination date, provided the questions to his friend, advised her to review them, and gave her model answers. After facilitating this cheating scheme, he signed an official declaration confirming that the Part 3 exam had been conducted according to RIBA exam conditions and that there had been no collusion, despite knowing this was completely false.
In an unusual move, the ARB's Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) handled the preliminary matters, factual background, and findings of the case in private sessions. The committee has not disclosed additional details about the specific nature of the relationship between Treacy and the unnamed candidate, referred to as "Person A" in official documents. However, the ARB revealed that Treacy himself reported his own misconduct several years after it occurred, describing the disciplinary proceedings as "cathartic."
Treacy's decision to come forward was reportedly motivated by reputational damage he claimed was being caused by Person A. However, the PCC found that Treacy's self-reporting was not driven by genuine remorse or professional responsibility. Instead, the committee determined that he only disclosed his wrongdoing with the intention of exposing Person A's conduct during her Part 3 examination process, suggesting his motives were retaliatory rather than ethical.
The Professional Conduct Committee was highly critical of Treacy's attitude and behavior throughout the proceedings. The PCC stated that Treacy had demonstrated "a pattern of poor conduct, of dishonesty and lack of integrity" and had "not looked back at his conduct with a self-critical eye." The committee found particularly troubling his continued attempts to shift blame and avoid responsibility for his actions.
Throughout his testimony, Treacy maintained that his actions were the result of "coercion and duress" from Person A, which the committee viewed as an ongoing failure to accept responsibility for his professional misconduct. The PCC noted that while Treacy admitted to providing model answers to examination questions in breach of RIBA regulations, he attempted to blame Person A for copying his answers verbatim during the Part 3 examination. This blame-shifting demonstrated what the committee called "the registered person's inability to separate his professional and personal lives."
As a result of these findings, Treacy has been completely removed from the Architects Register and can only seek re-registration as an architect if he can demonstrate to the ARB that he has adequately addressed his professional failings. The removal represents one of the most severe sanctions available to the ARB and effectively ends his ability to practice as a registered architect.
The consequences extend beyond Treacy's personal registration. The ARB informed the Architects' Journal that Paul Treacy Architects is no longer permitted to use the word "architect" in its practice name, as this would constitute misuse of a protected professional title. However, no misuse of title offense can be committed during the three-month statutory appeal period, during which Treacy could potentially challenge the decision.
The ARB declined to provide information about whether Person A successfully became a registered architect or whether she might face separate disciplinary proceedings related to her role in the cheating scheme. This silence raises questions about potential ongoing investigations or the complexity of determining appropriate sanctions for examination candidates who participate in such misconduct.
Both the RIBA and Paul Treacy Architects have been contacted for comment regarding the case, though no responses have been provided. The case highlights ongoing concerns about maintaining professional standards and integrity within architectural education and qualification processes, particularly regarding the critical Part 3 examination that serves as the final step toward full professional registration as an architect.
