Stopping HCPC cases early

Each regulator runs its processes slightly differently, but in general they all work as follows: an initial triage/screening phase, followed by an investigation phase; and then a decision by Case Examiners or something similar on whether a case should go to a final hearing. A decision by the Case Examiners that a case should not go any further, in defence terms, is a win, and is often what we are aiming for if the client gets to us sufficiently early.

The HCPC calls its Case Examiners, the “Investigating Committee Panel” (“ICP”).

When I first started this work in 2014, the ICP was a panel of three members, with at least one registrant member and the remainder as lay members. The chair of the panel may or may not have had a legal background.

In more recent times, as part of its drive to respond to concerns raised by the Professional Standards Authority in its annual audits, the HCPC has ensured that the chair is a lawyer. My results in stopping cases early have always been more than fair - but with this change to the composition of panels, the prospects of clients ending their cases at ICP stage has been given a real boost.

Why? Because submissions can be targeted at the lawyer on the panel.

This week, a client had their case discontinued by the ICP with a no case to answer decision. The submissions I drafted were firmly with that lawyer panel member in mind.

And the effect of the submissions could be seen in the panel’s reasons, which directly adopted the way I put the case.

My experience and understanding of the HCPC processes and that of the other regulators is partly what is being paid for when clients instruct me.

The other significant part - simply that I want to defend my clients and win their cases.