The architecture world has been rocked after a once-respected architect was struck off the professional register for handing exam answers to a colleague he was romantically involved with.
Paul Treacy, 57, had nearly three decades of experience and was known for leading major projects, including Bristol’s Waterfront Place and Kings Mill Hospital in Nottingham.
The Breach of Trust
Treacy, who served as both a mentor and an examination supervisor, provided his junior colleague with model answers for the final paper required to qualify as an architect.
Despite signing a declaration that her exams had been completed honestly, it later emerged that he had actively assisted her in completing them.
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) determined that he had “abused the trust placed in him,” leading to a suspension from the architects register for a minimum of two years.
Prioritizing Romance Over Integrity
A tribunal criticized Treacy for allowing his personal relationship to cloud his professional judgment.
His actions were labeled as “dishonest” and lacking integrity.
Though he had an otherwise unblemished record, during the misconduct hearing he repeatedly tried to shift the blame onto his junior colleague.
Sadia Zouq, the legally qualified chair of the Architects Registration Board Professional Conduct Committee, said Treacy had shown “a pattern of poor conduct, dishonesty, and lack of integrity over a period of time.”
She added that he had opportunities to correct his behavior but deliberately chose not to.
Deliberate and Pre-Meditated Misconduct
Treacy admitted to providing significant help on the colleague’s Case Study and crafting model answers for her Part Three examination.
Yet, he failed to disclose his misconduct for several years.
He only self-reported after his colleague’s actions began to threaten his professional reputation.
The Committee noted that his explanation reflected a misunderstanding of his duties as a regulated professional, highlighting his inability to separate personal relationships from professional responsibilities.
Risks to the Public and Profession
The tribunal stressed that Treacy’s actions posed a substantial risk to the wider public, as they involved assisting someone in achieving a professional qualification through unfair means.
Even during the sanction phase, he claimed his behavior was coerced by the colleague—a defense the Committee rejected as evidence of ongoing refusal to take responsibility.
Seriousness of the Case
Ultimately, the Committee concluded that Treacy’s behavior represented a “high level of seriousness.”
His dishonesty and lack of integrity not only undermined his own standing but also threatened the reputation of the entire profession.
Allowing him to continue practicing would have risked further damage to the trust placed in architects by the public.