Actuarial work is rarely done in isolation. Even when an actuary works independently, our work almost always interacts with others: colleagues, clients, regulators, other professionals, and sometimes other actuaries who will review, rely on, or build upon our original outputs.
In that sense, professionalism is not only about the conclusions we reach. It is also about how we conduct ourselves in the course of our work. How we express disagreement, how we challenge each other’s analysis, and how we behave under pressure can influence outcomes, even when those effects are not visible in the final report.
Rule 8 exists to address that reality. It governs professional conduct in practice, not technical results. It sets expectations for respect and appropriate behaviour when professional judgments differ, when interests are not perfectly aligned, or when work changes hands.
What Rule 8 is really about
Rule 8 says:
“A member shall perform professional services with courtesy and professional respect, shall avoid unjustifiable or improper criticism of other members, and shall cooperate with others in the client’s or employer’s interest.”
Put more simply, Rule 8 requires respect in professional interactions.
It does not require agreement. It does not limit debate. It does not prevent actuaries from expressing strong views or defending their clients’ interests. Disagreement is a normal and healthy part of professional work.
What Rule 8 does require is that disagreement be expressed fairly and responsibly, and in a manner consistent with professional judgment. It governs how disagreements are handled, not whether they exist.
This distinction is important. On one end of the spectrum, a profession that discourages disagreement risks becoming stagnant, but on the other end, one that tolerates unrestrained or personal attacks risks undermining its credibility. Rule 8 helps us find the balance, leading to professional growth and respectful outcomes.
Rule 8 in everyday practice
Rule 8 most often arises in ordinary professional situations, especially when judgment, pressure, and differing interests are involved.
Some examples come to my mind: disagreements over assumptions or methods, reviewing or commenting on another actuary’s work, being replaced on an account, or stepping into a role previously held by someone else.
For these situations, Rule 8 identifies some expectations:
- Critique the work, not the person
- Base your criticism on analysis and reasoning
- Express any disagreement in a professional and measured way
This is not theoretical. Much of my professional experience has involved situations where interests were not aligned, including labour relations and business transactions. In those contexts, advocacy was expected. My clients did not expect neutrality when their interests are being defended. They also expected me to express my opinion when I did not agree with another professional. What they do expect, however, is that disagreements will be handled with professionalism and respect, even when positions are firmly held.
Rule 8 becomes especially visible when actuaries work with people outside the profession or when we have a different opinion than another actuary. In these settings, professional behaviour is often judged not only on technical substance, but on how disagreements are handled and how interactions are conducted.
Actuaries increasingly work with professionals from other disciplines, including accountants, lawyers, economists, investment experts, and policy specialists. We also interact with boards, unions, regulators, and other stakeholders with different perspectives and priorities. In these settings, Rule 8 supports effective engagement by reinforcing respectful communication and disciplined professional behaviour. It helps keep discussions focused on substance rather than personalities, and on outcomes rather than ego. Comparable standards appear in the codes of conduct of actuarial organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as among accountants and engineers.
When actuaries interact externally, we are seen as representatives of the profession, whether we intend to be or not.
Where is the line? Judgment and good conduct
We might ask ourselves where the boundary lies under Rule 8. When does criticism become improper? When does conduct reflect on the profession? How far do the Rules extend?
Rule 8 is principle‑based rather than prescriptive. Context matters. Proportionality matters. Reasonable professional judgment is expected. Rule 8 is not new – it has been in place for many years. We can be comfortable that the Professional Conduct Board has and will continue to apply this principle with fairness.
I have often approached this by considering how the behaviour would appear to a fair‑minded observer. Would it reasonably be seen as unprofessional? Would it undermine confidence in the profession if it were widely known?
In practice, that lens has been essential. In negotiations, whether with labour negotiations or in commercial transactions, it was often respect, not agreement, that allowed discussions to move forward and solutions to be reached.
How we work defines the profession
Rule 8 matters because professional conduct affects more than individual interactions. One person’s behaviour can influence how the profession is perceived as a whole.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are not intended to police tone or suppress debate. They exist to protect professionalism and trust in how debate is conducted.
It is also important to recognize the role of process. The Professional Conduct Board and the CIA’s disciplinary process exist to apply the Rules fairly and with due process. Their purpose is not to enforce conformity of views, but to assess conduct against established standards, with appropriate safeguards.
Together with integrity and competence, professional respect completes the picture of professionalism. The strength of the profession is reflected not only in what actuaries know, but in how we work with others.
“Respect is not optional. It is how trust in our profession is maintained, one interaction at a time.”
Members can dive deeper into Rule 8 to understand more about why it matters and how it applies them.