Professional integrity: Rule 1 of the CIA’s Rules of Professional Conduct

Most of us don’t sit around reciting the Rules of Professional Conduct. And if you asked a roomful of members to quote them word-for-word, I know we’d all struggle. But the interesting thing is that the spirit of the Rules tends to show up anyway. It shows up in the little decisions, the uncomfortable conversations, and the moments where someone is relying on our work more than they realize.

Actuarial work has consequences. The stakes can be high for the people and organizations affected by the decisions that our work informs, not just financially, but also in terms of security, fairness, and long-term confidence. That’s why Rule 1 exists, and why I think it matters more than many people assume at first glance. The Rule isn’t merely ceremonial; it’s the foundation on which everything else sits.

Rule 1 is about trust. Trust isn’t abstract. Trust is a reason the profession is allowed to be self-regulating, why our opinions carry weight, and why our designation is meaningful in the first place.

Perhaps this was most apparent to me during my years doing pension consulting in Brazil. Inflation was in the neighbourhood of 100% when I arrived, soon rose to around 200%, briefly shot up to near 1000%, got yanked back down to single digits, and then rapidly headed back up again. Pension plans were a novelty in Brazil in the private sector. Helping foreign companies with subsidiaries in Brazil, as well as local private sector enterprises, get comfortable with implementing such plans for their Brazilian staff required enormous trust by management in the work we were doing.

What Rule 1 says, and what it really means

Here’s the formal wording:

That’s a lot to pack into one sentence, so let me say it more plainly.

Rule 1 expects members to be honest, to act with integrity and competence, to keep the public interest in view, and to avoid conduct that undermines the reputation of the profession.

The annotations under Rule 1 help clarify what’s meant in practical terms. We’re expected to perform professional services with skill and care. We’re expected not to be associated with anything false or misleading. We’re also expected not to engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, or acts that reflect adversely on the profession.

The key point for me is this: Rule 1 doesn’t only apply in a narrow technical sense. It can apply when we’re acting in a professional capacity, when our credentials give extra weight to what we’re saying, and in situations where our conduct could reasonably be seen as reflecting our profession.

That’s why I’ve always thought of Rule 1 as a catch-all. It’s there to demand sound and honest judgement.

Why Rule 1 is foundational to the profession

Many professions have rules like this and that’s not unique. What is distinctive in actuarial work is how often people must rely on it without being able to independently verify every choice, as well as the very long-term nature of much of our work. That includes assumptions, methods, interpretation, and communication. And that dependence is exactly why trust sits at the centre of professionalism.

When the profession is trusted, actuarial work can support responsible decision-making. When it’s not trusted, even technically strong work can be treated with suspicion, and the profession’s credibility erodes. I was not part of the focus group work carried out regarding the Rules in 2024, but I understand that a consensus view emerging was that trust is at the heart of why the Rules matter.

Rule 1 also supports self-regulation. A self-regulating profession needs a shared baseline that says, “Here is what we expect of ourselves, even when nobody is watching.” The Rules exist to identify the conduct standards members must comply with to uphold the reputation of the profession.

So, what does Rule 1 mean in practice?

It’s often not dramatic. It’s the quieter pressures that accumulate:

• “Do we really need to disclose that limitation?”
• “Those sensitivity calculations are pretty dramatic. Do we really need to show them?”
• “Couldn’t we just ignore that additional assumption? Is it really that likely?”

Rule 1 is a reminder that we are responsible for what we put into the world. That includes what we say, what we sign, and what we choose not to do.

It also requires judgment. Honesty is rarely just about literal truth. It is also about not being associated with anything misleading. That includes misleading framing, selective emphasis, or glossing over uncertainty.

I’ve been contracted from time to time, in a variety of situations, to do “independent” reports. Clearly the parties requesting them were preferring a favourable view. While each time I was able to get there, I felt it important to include the negatives as well as the positives in reaching my (favourable) conclusion, to help the reader reach a broader understanding of the matter at hand and that it wasn’t necessarily an open-and-shut case.

One habit that helps is the ability to pause and ask: “If a reasonable person read this, would they come away with the right understanding, or just the convenient one?” That small test catches a lot of problems early.

I understand that some see the Rules as constraints, but I see them differently. Rule 1 can be a form of protection, for the public, for the profession, and for members who are trying to do the right thing in environments that aren’t always designed for it. One other outcome of the focus group work I mentioned earlier was that the Rules can be helpful in guiding thinking and communication, and sometimes in pushing back. Rule 1 can function as a kind of “comfort blanket” when you need to draw a line.

I’ve personally been fortunate to work across different parts of the profession, including insurance, pensions and HR consulting, consulting to insurers, and reinsurance. I’ve also lived and worked in multiple countries. That kind of variety provides a broad perspective, but the issues of competence, trust, and integrity arise regardless.

Serving the public interest: the bigger picture and advice

Rule 1 explicitly ties our conduct to the profession’s responsibility to the public and plays an important role in what makes the profession legitimate.

Serving the public interest doesn’t mean we never make mistakes (although I hope we don’t make too many…). It does mean that we’re accountable for how our work is used, understood, and relied upon. Those who have worked long enough in our field will know that. What it also means is that we aim for sound judgment, transparency about limitations, and avoidance of misleading communication.

For those early in their careers, Rule 1 can feel like a broad statement that’s hard to operationalize. My advice would be to always be able to take pride in what you do, because you know you’re doing the right thing.

The CIA’s role in all of this is not simply to publish Rules. It is to set expectations, support members in professionalism, and uphold standards when needed.

Members can dive deeper into Rule 1 to understand more about why it matters and how it applies them.