By ADAM POGRUND, REPORTER Published: 11:42 BST, 18 September 2025 | Updated: 11:44 BST, 18 September 2025
An award-winning architect has been struck off after he handed exam answers to his junior colleague lover.Paul Treacy, 57, an architect of almost 30 years, provided model answers for the final paper to become a qualified architect to his colleague, who he was romantically involved with.Mr Treacy, who led projects to build Bristol's Waterfront Place and Kings Mill Hospital in Nottingham, was an office mentor and an examination supervisor but signed a declaration stating his lover's tests had been completed honestly.He was struck off the architects register for a minimum of two years after 'abusing the trust placed in him' by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).A tribunal accused him of prioritising his relationship with the colleague, 'dishonesty' and a lack of 'integrity'.Treacy had a previously unblemished record but was taken to a misconduct committee hearing where he 'continued to place blame' on his junior colleague for his behaviour.Sadia Zouq, legally qualified chair of the Architects Registration Board Professional Conduct Committee, said: 'There was a pattern of poor conduct of dishonesty and lack of integrity that had taken place over a period of time. '[Mr Treacy] had opportunities throughout this period to have corrected his conduct, he actively chose not to do so. Paul Treacy, 57, was struck off the register for at least two years after he handed exam answers to his junior colleague lover'His dishonest conduct was deliberate and pre-meditated. In his complaint to RIBA, he admitted to 'significantly' contributing to Person A's Case Study and he separately crafted model answers to questions for Person A's Part Three examination.'[Mr Treacy] failed to disclose his conduct for several years.'He explained to the Committee that his decision to self-report to RIBA and the ARB was only prompted by the professional reputational damage being caused by Person A.'This demonstrated to the Committee [Mr Treacy's] lack of understanding and appreciation of his duties as a regulated professional.'While he admitted to providing model answers to examination questions to Person A in breach of the RIBA regulations, he sought to blame Person A for copying his answers verbatim in the Part Three examination.'This demonstrated to the Committee [Mr Treacy's] inability to separate his professional and personal lives.'There was a substantial risk of harm to the wider public as [Mr Treacy] had himself identified the risks associated with assisting someone to achieve a qualification for which they had received undue assistance and support in breach of the RIBA Regulations.'Even at the sanction stage, he maintained in his evidence that his actions were the result of coercion and duress from Person A.'The Committee considered this demonstrated an ongoing failure to accept responsibility for his conduct which it had found was serious and a significant falling below the standards expected of an architect.'The Committee was satisfied that this case was at a high level of seriousness. The findings of dishonesty and lack of integrity undermine the standing of [Mr Treacy] and the wider profession.'To allow [Mr Treacy] to continue in practice would be to damage the reputation of the profession.'
