The ICAEW has recently run a seminar for insolvency practitioners on the changes to the Code of Ethics that came into effect on 1 October 2025. Having listened carefully, I think there are important lessons here, not just for compliance, but for the profession’s future direction.
As I’ve written before in my 40 Years in Insolvency series – particularly in Insolvency Has an Identity Crisis – It’s Time We Asked Who Belongs Here – we need to face some uncomfortable questions about the kind of people we want in this profession. The updated ethics rules don’t answer all of that. But they do nudge us in a particular direction.
Before we get into the detail, it’s worth saying what’s actually changed.
At a glance – what’s new from 1 October 2025
-
The Joint Insolvency Committee has issued a revised Insolvency Code of Ethics, adopted by the main RPBs.
-
It lines up with the 2024 international ethics code used by ICAEW and ICAS.
-
It still rests on the same five fundamental principles – but:
-
puts more weight on professional behaviour (including bullying and harassment),
-
formalises the idea of an “inquiring mind” and ethical role and mindset, and
-
recognises the reality of technology and AI in our day-to-day work.
-
-
Sanctions are becoming more serious, and “we didn’t realise” is not going to be a good defence.
With that in mind, let’s look at some of the themes that came through at the seminar.
The Five Fundamentals – Still at the Core
The seminar began with a reminder of the five fundamental principles underpinning our work:
-
Integrity – honesty, fairness, and the courage to act properly under pressure.
-
Objectivity – avoiding bias or undue influence.
-
Professional competence and due care – keeping skills and knowledge up to date, and ensuring staff are properly trained and supervised.
-
Confidentiality – safeguarding information.
-
Professional behaviour – complying with the law and avoiding conduct that discredits the profession.
None of this is new. But what struck me was how often the basics are still at the root of disciplinary cases. We’re not talking about obscure case law. We’re talking about things that, in theory, every firm should be able to get right.
Competence and Due Care: Where Most Complaints Fall
The ICAEW made it clear that professional competence and due care is the single biggest problem area. In 2024, over 60% of sanctions were for shortcomings here.
Examples cited included:
-
Late or missing progress reports.
-
Delayed or inadequate employee claims processing.
-
Investigations treated as ‘tick-box’ exercises.
-
Miscalculations in shareholder or creditor distributions.
Most of these aren’t complex legal issues. They’re failures of control, resourcing and follow-up – the everyday bread and butter of running an insolvency practice.
If you’re an IP or a firm owner, that’s uncomfortable. It means the risk isn’t only in the exotic cases. It’s in whether your systems and people can consistently do the basics, month in, month out.
Professional Behaviour and Culture – How You Act, Not Just What You Know
One area where the new Code is clearly tougher is professional behaviour.
The message from the seminar was simple: regulators are not just interested in technical breaches anymore. They’re interested in how we treat people, and in the culture we create.
In practical terms, that means:
-
You’re expected to treat others fairly, with respect and dignity – staff, creditors, directors, fellow professionals, everyone.
-
Bullying, harassment, victimisation or unfair discrimination are expressly called out as unacceptable.
-
“Professional life” is interpreted widely. If you’re representing your firm or the profession – at an R3 lunch, a seminar, a work social event, online – you’re on duty as far as the Code is concerned.
Private conduct is still mostly outside the scope of the Code, but serious misconduct – think criminal convictions or behaviour that would obviously bring the profession into disrepute – can still land you in trouble.
This isn’t about being po-faced. It’s about recognising that IPs hold a position of trust. How you behave in front of staff and peers sends a message about what’s acceptable in your firm. The new Code makes it harder to shrug off “that’s just how X is”.
Conclusion: Step Forward or Missed Opportunity?
So, is this new Code a genuine step forward or just a missed opportunity dressed up as progress?
In one sense, it is a step forward. Putting the “inquiring mind” on the page, calling out bullying and harassment, and recognising the ethical risks around technology and AI all move the conversation in the right direction. The focus on competence, culture and behaviour – not just technical conflicts and independence – brings the Code closer to the realities of running an insolvency practice in 2025, not 1985.
But in another sense, it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t grapple with the structural issues that cause so much damage to public trust: panel arrangements and economic dependence on a few funders, the ethics of no-asset CVLs, opaque charging structures, and the gulf between the fees charged and the outcomes actually delivered for creditors and employees. Those topics sit largely outside the four corners of the Code, and for many stakeholders they are exactly where the ethical rubber really hits the road.
So my answer is this: the new Code is a step forward, but a modest one. It sharpens the lens on individual behaviour and firm-level systems, which is welcome and overdue. It does not resolve the deeper identity crisis facing the profession, nor does it tackle the commercial pressures that quietly shape so many decisions. Whether it becomes more than a missed opportunity will depend on what we, as practitioners, choose to do with it – whether we treat it as another compliance document, or as a prompt to ask much harder questions about who we are, how we work, and who we are really here to serve.