The revised Code aligns the requirements applicable to insolvency practitioners (IPs) to the main requirements contained within the amended 2024 International Ethics Standards Board of Accountants (IESBA) Code which has already been adopted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (in the revision effective from 1 July 2025). The revised Code also reflects changes to the fundamental principle of professional behaviour that were developed by ICAEW in its main Code of Ethics.

The revisions relate to:

• professional behaviour;
• role and mindset;
• technology; and
• consequential amendments as a result of the withdrawal of Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) as a recognised professional body (RPB) and the withdrawal of ICAEW and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) as prescribed accountancy bodies in the Republic of Ireland.

Professional behaviour

The revised Code clarifies how insolvency practitioners should behave as professionals, and the context in which they would be considered to be acting in their professional lives, as opposed to their private lives. The test for assessing the seriousness of any poor conduct is that which a reasonable and informed third party would conclude brings discredit to the profession.

A new paragraph has been introduced to clarify those expectations. The concept of a “reasonable and informed third party” already features elsewhere in the Code and to clarify the expectations of an IP’s personal conduct, the revised paragraph 2105.1 A2 now reads:

The revised wording refers to an individual's “professional life” and replaces previous wording that required IPs to treat those with whom they come into contact when performing their work with courtesy and consideration. The revised wording clarifies that the expectations of conduct exist in any element of an IP’s professional life, not just when performing client work. Any situation involving colleagues or clients, or where the IP is representing their employer, or the profession, could be relevant. This could include, for example, work social events even if they take place out of normal work hours and/or do not take place on work premises.

If an IP's professional status is visible on social media accounts, any posts will likely be seen as made in their professional capacity. For example, LinkedIn profiles generally include professional details, so all LinkedIn posts are likely to be subject to the “professional life” standard of conduct. Other social media accounts used may not be as explicit but if the nature of the IP’s profession is apparent from posts on a social media feed, this is also likely to be enough for any posts via that platform to be subject to the “professional life” standard.

There remains the overarching requirement not to bring discredit to the profession and to comply with all relevant laws and regulations. It is possible to bring discredit through the things done in an individual’s private life if the conduct is seriously poor and therefore incompatible with the higher standards expected of a member of the insolvency profession, for example, if an IP becomes a convicted criminal.

The role and mindset revisions

The role and mindset revisions aim to emphasise the profession’s public interest responsibility by encouraging IPs to demonstrate the role, mindset, and behavioural characteristics expected of them.

Key changes include:

• highlighting the importance of compliance with the fundamental principles in helping IPs to meet their responsibility to act in the public interest;
• explaining that compliance with the Code means not only compliance with the letter of the Code but also with its spirit;
• clarifying that compliance with the Code does not mean an IP will have always met their responsibility to act in the public interest;
• a new requirement for IPs to have an inquiring mind when applying the conceptual framework. This represents the need to consider the source, relevance and sufficiency of information obtained taking into account the nature, scope and outputs of the professional activity being undertaken and being open and alert to a need for further investigation or other action. Application material is set out in paragraphs 2111.5 A1 – 2111.5 A3;
• strengthening the fundamental principle of integrity by emphasising the importance of having the strength of character to act appropriately. This includes standing one’s ground when confronted by dilemmas and difficult situations and challenging others as and when circumstances warrant, in a manner appropriate to the circumstances. This serves to highlight that it is not always easy to do “the right thing”. The revised Code now recognises that IPs face pressures which could lead to them compromising the fundamental ethical principles and therefore there is a need for strength to continue to be able to act appropriately even in such difficult circumstances;
• strengthening the fundamental principles of objectivity, professional competence and due care and professional behaviour, including some enhancements that reflect the impact of technology;
• emphasising the importance of being aware of bias in the exercise of professional judgement. Application material is set out in paragraphs 2117.3 A1 – 2117.3 A3 and includes a list of eight examples of bias which might influence professional judgement; and
• highlighting the importance that a positive internal organisational culture has on the effective application of the conceptual framework and explicitly recognising that IPs have a role in promoting ethical behaviour and culture in their organisations. Application material is set out in paragraphs 2117.4 A1 – 2117.4 A3.

Technology

The revised Code responds to the impact of rapid technological advancements and accelerating digitalisation. The revisions refer to the generic term “technology” to help future proof their relevance but will include developments in AI.

The revisions include:

• strengthening the Code in guiding the mindset and behaviour of IPs when using any technology;
• providing enhanced guidance fit for the digital age in relation to the fundamental principles of confidentiality, and professional competence and due care, as well as in dealing with circumstances of complexity;
• an explicit requirement to safeguard confidential information throughout the whole of the data lifecycle;
• determining whether the output from technology is appropriate before relying on it;
• a duty of “explainability” to explain the implications of any limitations inherent in professional advice to clients; and
• a new definition of “confidential information”.

Consequential amendments

In recent years there have been changes to the regulatory landscape. Both ICAEW and ICAS have withdrawn from being a regulating body in the Republic of Ireland, revoking their prescribed accountancy body status. In addition, Chartered Accountants Ireland has withdrawn as a recognised professional body under the Insolvency Act 1986 in the UK.

As a result of the above, section 2540 “Application in the Republic of Ireland” has been removed from the revised Code as none of the issuing bodies now operate as regulators of insolvency work in that jurisdiction.

Revised Code referencing

ICAEW and ICAS have also taken the opportunity to amend the positioning of the Code of Ethics for Insolvency Practitioners within their wider Code of Ethics – moving it from Part 5 to Part 10. This is in anticipation of forthcoming changes to the IESBA Code which will introduce sections with specific application to non-insolvency areas.

As the revised Code forms part of a wider Code of Ethics for both ICAEW and ICAS, but is a standalone Code of Ethics for the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA), the section numbering is different for IPA from ICAEW/ICAS. IPA section numbering drops the 2000 reference (eg, Section 2115 in the respective ICAEW/ICAS revised Codes is Section 115 in the IPA Code). Furthermore, the IPA Code does not include the wording of paragraph 2000.7 A1 as it refers to R330.3 and R330.3 B in the ICAEW and ICAS wider Code of Ethics which the IPA has not adopted. In all other aspects, the wording of the revised Code across the RPBs is identical.