Award-winning architect struck off after handing exam answers to junior colleague lover

An award-winning architect has been struck off the Architects Registration Board register for at least two years after handing exam answers to his junior colleague with whom he was romantically involved. Paul Treacy, 57, who has led high-profile projects including Bristol's Waterfront Place and Kings Mill Hospital in Nottingham, was an office mentor and an examination supervisor but signed a declaration stating his lover's tests had been completed honestly.

During the disciplinary proceedings, the ARB Professional Conduct Committee found a pattern of dishonesty and a lack of integrity, saying Treacy had opportunities to correct his conduct but chose not to. The committee emphasized that his actions represented a serious breach of the standards expected of a regulated professional and noted the risk such behavior posed to the public interest. Treacy argued that his conduct was influenced by coercion and duress from his colleague, but the panel rejected that explanation and highlighted the separation of his professional and personal lives as a key issue.

The ARB case stemmed from Treacy providing model answers for the Part Three examination and contributing significantly to his junior colleague's Case Study. He also signed a declaration that the learner's tests had been completed honestly, an action the tribunal deemed misleading. While Treacy claimed his colleague copied his answers verbatim, the committee found that admission did not excuse his own responsibility for breaching regulatory rules. The panel described the conduct as deliberate and premeditated, underscoring a failure to accept accountability and a continued misalignment between Treacy's professional duties and personal relationships.

The tribunal stressed that Treacy's decision to self-report only after reputational damage indicated a lack of understanding of his duties as a regulated professional. The sanction was deemed necessary to protect the public and preserve the profession's integrity. Treacy had previously maintained an unblemished record, but the proceedings concluded that the case met a high level of seriousness, with findings of dishonesty and lack of integrity undermining the standing of the individual and the wider profession. The panel warned that allowing Treacy to continue practicing would erode trust in architecture as a licensed profession.

The outcome reflects ongoing concerns within the architecture sector about ethics, accountability, and the potential harm to the public when professionals abuse confidences or assist others in obtaining qualifications through improper means.