Read the CISI's verdict on the ethical dilemma that appears in the Q2 2018 edition of The Review
Read 'Grey matters ethical dilemma: Sign of the times' from the Q2 2018 print edition of The Review. Voting is now closedThis 'Grey matters', published in the Q2 2018 print edition of The Review, deals with familiar issues, including grief and stress, and a lack of support at a time when a crucial decision must be made. Many will empathise with Holly’s situation, where she finds herself doing something wrong, but with the best of intentions.
This dilemma was inspired by real-life events, as told to us by a CISI member, for which we offer our thanks. Should you wish to suggest dilemmas, please contact us at principles@cisi.org
Suggested solutions and results are as follows:
- Holly should be fired for gross misconduct. She was not a witness to the trustee’s signature, and has therefore fraudulently inserted her own name in the document. (15%)
- Alex should acknowledge that Holly was left in a tough position and did what she thought was right in the circumstances. However, she did make some serious mistakes, so should be required to undertake further training, and must have all her work strictly supervised for a set time. (26%)
- Holly clearly knows that her actions are wrong, and Alex trusts that she would not behave in this manner under normal circumstances. Furthermore, Alex realises that her own actions, including telling Holly to ensure the paperwork was completed with minimal disruption to the Harris family and leaving her without supervision during a critical time, contributed to the issue arising. Therefore, she should not take any further action at this time. (15%)
- Holly should face disciplinary action, but the sanction should be short of dismissal, considering Alex’s responsibility in the situation arising as well as the exceptional circumstances presented by this case. (44%)
Responses received: 266
The percentages shown above and the number of responses differ slightly to those in the print edition, because voting was closed after the magazine went to print.
The CISI verdict
What Holly did is, essentially, fraud. She signed a document as a witness, despite having not actually witnessed the trustee’s signature.
However, ethical dilemmas are never ‘black or white’. Holly was told by her manager, Alex, to ensure that the documents be signed with as little disturbance to the Harris family as possible, and Holly wanted to honour this, especially since she had recently suffered a bereavement as well.
Therefore, many comments note that while Holly’s actions were wrong, her intentions were good. While the majority of the respondents opted for Holly facing disciplinary action, it was felt that mitigating circumstances should mean any sanction should fall short of dismissal.
The CISI’s recommended option is in line with this. Holly should be held accountable for her actions, but those actions should be considered in line with her intentions and the situation she found herself in.
Selection of comments
"Clearly, this is a serious situation, which should involve disciplinary steps. While one might need legal input/advice on the fraud, it appears that one needs to consider "with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss". Based on the information provided, it appears that Holly's underlying intent was to avoid troubling persons at a very difficult time. On balance therefore, and while Holly was wrong to act as she did, summary dismissal appears a little excessive. While it is not directly material to the ethical question at hand, it may be possible to mitigate the inappropriate signature by having this re-witnessed, then removing the risk of any harm to the clients."
“Ultimately, Holly was just trying to help the family at a difficult time. Clearly, she realises that what she did was wrong, but it wasn't in any way fraudulent. I would imagine it would be possible to get the document witnessed retrospectively? I feel that Holly should be reprimanded and undergo further training, but to dismiss her summarily would seem overly harsh.”
“First, Alex must report the whole affair to her own superior and the compliance function within the firm. As Alex has to some extent contributed to the position in which Holly finds herself, she cannot be the final authority on what should be done. Holly is able and will learn from this episode if allowed to continue her career. Justice and mercy are both relevant here.”
“The key issue is intent – there was no malintent, or desire not to act in the customer's best interest. Her actions need to be judged in the context of her level of seniority and the position she was placed in due to the explicit instructions of her superior, who bears ultimate responsibility for creating the conflict she experienced. She was trapped either way – disobeying regulations or disobeying her superior.”
“Alex should also face some disciplinary action, along with Holly.”
“Holly did not actually witness the signature but she was familiar with it and could recognise it as authentic. Although she was wrong to apply her signature as witness, there was some reasonability in making the assumption that there was an inadvertent omission of the signature on that particular page, given that it had been applied to all the others. Holly also has a level of experience, having worked there for a number of years, so that further supervision would not necessarily be the solution. A sanction is definitely warranted for Holly by Alex.”