Professionalism Counts, August 2026
Precept 10 of the Code of Professional Conduct provides critical guidance for some of the most difficult situations actuaries may face during their careers: technical disagreements with peers and navigating professional relationships when replacing—or being replaced by—another actuary. Although maintaining courtesy during a contentious dispute or unexpected transition can be challenging, respectful communication is essential to serving principals with skill and care and maintaining public trust.
While Precept 10 sets the baseline expectation—actuaries must perform actuarial services with courtesy and respect and cooperate with others in the principal’s interest—its annotations provide detailed guidance for specific situations. Annotation 10-1 recognizes that differences of opinion will arise, particularly regarding assumptions and methods. Discussions of such differences, whether with the other actuary or the principal, should be conducted objectively and professionally. As ASOP No. 1, Introductory Actuarial Standard of Practice, recognizes that a range of reasonable assumptions and methods can exist for a given assignment, two actuaries evaluating identical facts may reach different yet equally defensible conclusions.
Several annotations to Precept 10 establish permissive safe harbors rather than restrictions. Annotation 10-2 affirms the principal’s indisputable right to choose an advisor, confirming that the Code does not restrict legitimate competition or concurrent assignments. An actuary is free to provide services even if the principal is currently or was previously served by another practitioner on the same matter. Building on this, Annotation 10-3 clarifies that an actuary—whether acting as an external consultant or an internal company employee—may present an alternate opinion, together with an explanation of the factors that lend support to the alternative opinion.
Annotation 10-4 is aimed at the prospective successor actuary. Annotation 10-4 suggests that in this situation, it might be a good idea for the actuary to consult with the other actuary for two reasons: to gain a better understanding of the assignment; and to make an informed judgment about whether the circumstances of the assignment involve a violation of the Code. (Here we should recall that Precept 1 forbids the actuary from providing actuarial services that may be used to violate or evade the law; to engage in any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; or to commit any act that reflects adversely on the actuarial profession.) In keeping with confidentiality duties under Precept 9, the prospective actuary should obtain the principal’s consent prior to reaching out to the other actuary. If a principal withholds consent, that refusal might serve as a significant red flag, and the actuary might want to consider turning down the assignment.
In contrast to the permissive annotations, Annotation 10-5 imposes an affirmative obligation on the actuary being replaced. Annotation 10-5 requires such actuaries to cooperate promptly in transferring relevant data and documents. While actuaries are entitled to reasonable compensation for the effort required to assemble and transmit this information, they cannot withhold cooperation over fee disputes or unresolved compensation issues unless an explicit, pre-existing agreement with the principal permits it. They are not, however, required to release proprietary materials, such as internal models, computer code/programs, or confidential internal communications.
Disputes regarding cooperation and transitions are among the most frequent issues before the Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline (ABCD). The Academy has issued three discipline notices for violations of Precept 10—one for failing completely to provide information to a successor actuary, and two for failing to provide such information promptly. The ABCD also regularly fields requests for guidance (RFGs) on these scenarios. In 2025 alone, the ABCD handled RFGs covering guidance for actuaries engaged in technical disagreements over ACA calculations; differences of opinion among company actuaries; and addressing situations where a former actuary is not providing documents to a successor actuary.
Professional transitions and substantive disagreements can evoke natural defensiveness or friction. Successors should approach predecessors with tact, while predecessors should cooperate without delay. Professional objectivity, humility, and integrity from both parties ensure that the principal is served and the reputation of the profession is preserved. When navigating these sensitive handoffs or disputes, actuaries are encouraged to seek an objective perspective by requesting guidance from the ABCD.