Professionalism and ethics case studies: formula sheet

Key formulas

Code versus APS

Code = broad ethical principles for all members; APS = specific standards for defined work

Use this one-line contrast in any 'difference between' question.

Which rule applies

Check the scope of the relevant APS first; if none applies, apply the Code principles

Only say an APS applies if the task falls within its scope. Do not invent APS numbers.

Answer pattern

Facts → principle → conflict or risk → action → record and communicate

A structure for any case-study answer.

Duty hierarchy

Law and regulation ≥ professional standards ≥ employer or client instructions

If an instruction conflicts with the law or the standards, the instruction does not win.

Core principle themes

Integrity, competence and care, compliance, impartiality, communication, confidentiality, conflicts of interest

A memory aid. Match it to the exact headings in the current IAI Code.

Framework sequence

Facts → Parties → Principles → Options → Test → Decide → Act and document

A memory aid, not an official IAI model. Use it to structure any ethics answer.

Test for each option

Option acceptable only if it is lawful, consistent with professional standards, honest, and defensible to the public

If an option fails any one of these, reject it and say why.

Duty hierarchy rule of thumb

Law and professional standards come before employer or client preference

Where they conflict, the professional obligation normally prevails, but explain the reasoning for the facts given.

Conflict test

Conflict exists if duty to A could be compromised by duty or interest B

Applies to actual, potential and perceived conflicts. B may be personal, another client's or your firm's.

Management sequence

Identify → Disclose → Manage (or Decline)

Use this order in every case study answer.

Grounds to breach confidentiality

Client consent, or legal requirement, or overriding public interest

Disclose the minimum necessary, to the right party only.

Whistleblowing escalation

Raise internally → Raise with client/board → Report to regulator or professional body

Skip steps only if delay causes serious harm or the people involved are themselves implicated.

Hierarchy of duty

Public interest ≥ professional standards ≥ client or employer wishes

A memory aid for conflicts, not a legal formula. Confidentiality still applies unless law or the standards allow or require disclosure.

Disciplinary sequence

Complaint → initial examination → fair hearing → finding → penalty

A general sequence. Use the exact stages and bodies from the IAI material when the question asks for them.

Answer frame for breach questions

Standard breached + who acts + process + possible outcome

Use this to structure any case-study answer.

Core principles behind the code

Integrity, competence and care, compliance, communication, impartiality

Use as a checklist to spot which principle a scenario breaches. Match the labels to the IAI code wording.

Quick revision

• Core values include integrity, competence, and acting in the public interest.
• Quote the relevant principle from the IAI Code of Conduct, then apply it to the facts.
• Use a framework: facts, parties, duties, options, consequences, recommendation.
• Always give a clear recommendation, not just a list of issues.
• A conflict of interest can be actual, potential or perceived, so deal with all three.
• Manage conflicts by disclosing, getting consent where appropriate, or stepping aside.
• Confidentiality has limits, such as legal requirements and the public interest.
• Reports should be clear, complete and state assumptions, limitations and reliance on others.
• Do not work beyond your competence; seek advice or review from a suitable peer.
• Pressure from an employer or client does not remove your professional duties.
• Breaches can lead to disciplinary action, so document your decisions and reasons.
• The public interest can override the wishes of a single client.

Common mistakes

• Listing values without applying them to the scenario. Fix: For every value you name, add 'in this case…' and tie it to a fact in the question.
• Always siding with the client or employer. Fix: Remember that duty to the client is real but sits within integrity and the public interest. Honest advice comes first.
• Treating the Code and APS as the same thing. Fix: Say the Code is broad ethical principles for all members and an APS is a specific standard for defined work.
• Quoting APS numbers or titles from memory without being sure. Fix: Describe what a standard requires and name it only if you are certain. A correct principle with a safe description scores better than a wrong number.
• Giving a one-line verdict such as 'this is unethical' with no reasoning. Fix: Show the steps. Marks go to identifying the conflict, weighing options and justifying the choice.
• Ignoring one of the stakeholders. Fix: Draw a quick list of all parties before you write and check each is addressed.
• Saying disclosure alone solves every conflict. Fix: Add that some conflicts need safeguards or refusal of the work, even after disclosure and consent.
• Treating confidentiality as absolute. Fix: Always state the exceptions: consent, legal requirement and overriding public interest.
• Writing a technical answer that ignores the audience. Fix: Name the audience first. Put the conclusion up front and explain jargon in plain words.
• Saying that relying on someone else removes the actuary's responsibility. Fix: State that the actuary remains responsible for judging whether reliance is reasonable and for disclosing it.

Exam tips

• Write your answer in a clear structure: issue, values, application, action. Markers look for this flow.
• Use the scenario's facts in every paragraph. Generic answers score poorly.
• Show balance. When values conflict, explain which wins and why.
• In MCQs, prefer the option that protects honesty and the public interest over the one that pleases the client.
• Practise with short scenarios under time limits, since this topic is usually tested through cases.
• Learn the headings of the current IAI Code from the IAI website and be able to match each to a short practical example.
• In case studies, always name the principle and then tie it to a specific fact in the scenario. Marks usually come from the link.
• Offer a sensible sequence of actions: clarify, document, raise, escalate. Avoid extreme steps unless the facts demand them.