Disciplinary process

What the process does

The disciplinary process derives from provisions contained in CIMA’s Charter and byelaws as approved by HM Privy Council.

• to protect the public
• to maintain public confidence in the profession of management accountancy
• to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession.

There is a three-tier approach to the process, involving the Investigation, Disciplinary and Appeal Committees, which together are referred to as the Professional Conduct Committees. These committees consider complaints against CIMA members and students when their conduct is alleged to have fallen short of good professional practice and standards.

‘... failure to comply with the Laws of the Institute and/or conduct by any Member or Registered Student resulting in any conviction, or adverse finding by, sanction or order of, or undertaking to any tribunal or court or other body or authority, which the Institute considers relevant to their membership of, or registration with, the Institute.’

As with civil courts and other tribunals, the conduct committees must act fairly and without bias. Their decisions must be reasonable and based only upon the evidence before them.

What the process cannot do

• determine fee or trade disputes
• provide compensation or restitution.

The professional conduct committees

It should be noted that adverse findings made against members and students by the following conduct committees are reported in the media and listed on the Published decisions page.

Investigation Committee

This committee is the first tier in the process. It considers all complaints initially and decides whether there is a prima facie case of misconduct to be answered by the CIMA member or student concerned. 

• conclude a complaint by way of the Consent Order procedure. This requires the member or student concerned to agree to the imposition of a sanction(s); 
• decide it is appropriate to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for determination as to whether the member or student is guilty of misconduct.

The Investigation Committee does not have the authority to expel members or to cancel student registrations, and the complaints it concludes are of a less serious nature.

If the member or student concerned does not accept a Consent Order when offered by the Investigation Committee, such as if the member or student does not agree to the imposition of the proposed sanction, it could be referred on to the Disciplinary Committee.

Disciplinary Committee

This is the principal professional conduct committee and the second tier in the disciplinary process. It deals with those complaints that are either too serious to be dealt with by the Investigation Committee, or where the member or student has not accepted a Consent Order.

In serious cases the Disciplinary Committee can expel a member from membership or cancel a student’s registration with CIMA.  The committee can impose a range of other sanctions – including fines – and may order that part or all of the costs incurred by CIMA are paid by the member or student concerned.

The hearings of the Disciplinary Committee are open to the public and press.

Appeal Committee

When a member or student has been notified of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision, there is a 21-day period in which they are entitled to appeal in the circumstances set out in CIMA’s Charter and byelaws. Such an appeal would be made to the Appeal Committee.

Appeal Committee hearings may be held in public. If you wish to make an appeal, you can download the Notice of Appeal form (PDF, 21KB)

The Appeal Committee also considers appeals made by complainants against decisions reached by the Investigation Committee and the Disciplinary Committee in the circumstances set out in CIMA’s regulations. 

Who sits on the committees?

• a chairman
• a vice chairman
• management accountant CIMA members, and 
• lay members.

The inclusion of lay members demonstrates the independence of the conduct committees, and their contribution brings a wider perspective, particularly in terms of understanding the public’s perceptions of the case under consideration.

 Back to top