Blog
Changes to the ICAS Code of Ethics – what do the changes mean for ICAS firms?
Zoe Beels
In our first blog, we discussed the changes made to the ICAS Code of Ethics and what those changes mean for members.
The 2026 updates to the ICAS Code of Ethics have significant implications that extend well beyond individual members. For firms, the strengthened framework around professional behaviour raises important questions about how they respond when a member employed by or practising within the firm may have fallen short of the expected standard. Those questions touch on reporting obligations, internal investigations, and the practical steps firms need to take to ensure they are meeting their own regulatory duties.
The Joint Insolvency Committee, in collaboration with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) and the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA), has approved and issued a revised Insolvency Code of Ethics. The updated Code took effect from 1 October 2025.
In three recent judgments handed down by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) – Solicitors Regulation Authority v Orton, Solicitors Regulation Authority v Panesar-Jagdev, and Solicitors Regulation Authority v McCullagh – the Tribunal found allegations of dishonesty proved but decided the circumstances fell within the small residual category of ‘exceptional circumstances’, thus warranting a more lenient sanction. In this blog, we consider recent case law in this area and, in particular, look at when the general rule of strike off for dishonesty has and has not been judged an appropriate sanction.
In our fourth blog in our series on Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), we turn our attention to consider what impact, if any, this landmark decision might have on the regulation of professional accountants. While the case turned on some very specific features relating to the regulation of solicitors as contained in the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) Principles and Code of conduct, some parts of the judgment may have more general application.
The decision of the Divisional Court in Beckwith v SRA [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin) has attracted extensive press attention as it is the first SRA case involving allegations of sexual misconduct that are not based on criminal conviction to reach the High Court. In high level terms the Court found that sexual misconduct cases should be confined to cases that clearly engage the SRA’s Code of Conduct and expressed the view that there were limits on how far a regulator should take action in relation to matters of private life.
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2026 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility