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 a minimum of two years after providing model answers for a final paper to a junior colleague with whom he was romantically involved, according to the ARB Professional Conduct Committee. Paul Treacy, 57, handed model answers for his colleague s final Part Three examination and supervised her tests, the ARB said. He also signed a declaration stating that her tests had been completed honestly, a step the committee said betrayed the trust placed in him as a regulated professional. Treacy had a nearly three-decade career during which he led major schemes such as Bristol s Waterfront Place and Kings Mill Hospital in Nottingham. The decision marks a sharp fall from grace for a practitioner described in his own city as a mentor and project leader. The ARB s Professional Conduct Committee concluded the misconduct was serious and had lasting implications for public protection. The ruling followed a hearing in which the committee heard there was a pattern of dishonesty and a lack of integrity spanning a period of time.

Treacy s relationship with Person A began in a professional context that later evolved into a romantic one, the tribunal noted. In that period, he provided the junior colleague with model answers for the Part Three exam and aided her study, while continuing to supervise her practical testing and work entries. The committee said this blurred lines between mentorship, supervision, and personal relationship, creating an environment in which he exploited the trust placed in him. He did not disclose the relationship to the governing bodies, and he minimized or avoided accountability for his actions after concerns about the case emerged. The ARB stressed that his acts of assistance were deliberate and designed to give his lover an advantage, effectively compromising the integrity of the examination process. The case raised questions about safeguarding standards in professional regulation and how conflicts of interest are monitored in practice settings where senior colleagues supervise junior staff. The tribunal found that there was a high level of seriousness given the potential harm to the public if a qualification obtained with undue help is treated as legitimate.

In presenting its findings, the committee quoted Sadia Zouq, the legally qualified chair, who said there was a pattern of poor conduct of dishonesty and lack of integrity that had taken place over a period of time. The chair noted that Treacy had opportunities throughout this period to correct his conduct yet chose not to do so. The panel also found that several defense arguments offered by Treacy, including claims of coercion or duress by Person A, did not relieve him of responsibility and instead demonstrated an ongoing failure to separate his professional duties from his personal life. The committee said Treacy had misrepresented his role in the case and had shown a disconnect between his public professional obligations and private choices, undermining confidence in the profession.

The ARB said Treacy self-reported the misconduct to the regulators only after reputational damage to him and his firm began to affect his standing, a move the committee described as insufficient to demonstrate a proper understanding of professional duties. It noted that the self report did not, in itself, absolve him of responsibility and that he continued to insist on a narrative that cast him as a victim of coercion. The panel emphasized that self reporting remains a discrete element of professional responsibility but must be paired with full acceptance of responsibility. The decision also reflected concern about the timing of the disclosure and whether it reflected a genuine commitment to public protection or merely an effort to mitigate damage to reputation.

The sanction reflects the committee s view that such acts undermine the profession s integrity and public confidence in the architecture regulatory system. The panel said that allowing Treacy to continue practicing would damage the standing of the profession and erode trust in qualifications earned through formal examination processes. The case illustrates the potential harms associated with conflict of interest in settings where senior professionals supervise examinations or mentor junior staff. Observers noted that the breadth of Treacy s career and his leadership on significant developments made the finding particularly consequential for the sector, signaling that regulators will pursue breaches of exam integrity even when tied to personal relationships.

Treacy s case underscores broader concerns about how professional regulation monitors conflicts of interest and enforces ethical standards in architecture. The ARB said the punishment is intended to protect the public and preserve standards across the profession, signaling that violations of exam integrity carry serious consequences. Treacy cannot practise architecture in the United Kingdom for at least two years, with the possibility of further sanctions if there are subsequent findings or breaches. The ruling also serves as a reminder to firms and licensing bodies of the importance of robust checks on examination processes and the potential ripple effects on built environment projects when ethics are called into question. In a profession where ongoing learning and testing are central to qualification, regulators stressed that upholding fair processes remains essential for public safety and the credibility of the profession.