Private lives, public standards: balancing personal privacy with professional standards for regulated professionals

Just as Solicitors in the United Kingdom are governed by the codes established by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) within their Code of Conduct, other regulated professionals are similarly bound by the standards imposed by the regulatory bodies of their respective professions. 

These regulatory bodies require adherence to the codes they have established in order to ensure that, as professionals, we act with the highest integrity to maintain public trust and confidence in our chosen professions. 

In recent years, many regulatory bodies have made amendments to their codes to widen their scope, seemingly extending their authority beyond the confines of the workplace and into the private lives of regulated professionals. 

Beyond the workplace

The extent to which regulators ‘have gone too far’ has previously been the topic of discussion in the much-reported case of R (on the application of Pitt and Tyas) v General Pharmaceutical Council [2017] EWHC 809 (Admin)) when the claimants, who were two pharmacists, sought to challenge specific wording contained within paragraph 6 of the introduction of its ‘Standards’ which states that the standards “need to be met at all times, not only during work hours.”

While it is widely accepted that personal conduct can impact upon professional standing, in a climate where professionals are more easily accessible, we must adjust to the ubiquity of digital communication, especially when corresponding with clients, patients and colleagues. 

In these circumstances, it is crucial to understand the extent to which regulatory bodies monitor conduct outside of a professional’s chosen profession and at what point a regulated professional’s private life may, in fact, be private especially where the consequences of regulatory scrutiny can lead to significant consequences.  

Perhaps most widely reported was the decision by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to fine the former Partner of a City firm after he acted “inappropriately” in engaging in sexual activity with a junior colleague. 

Although he was not found to have abused his position of authority, the SDT determined that his conduct “affected not only his personal reputation, but the reputation of the profession and thus was a matter that ought to bear the scrutiny of the regulator” and that the application of the specific Principles of 2 and 6 to a solicitor’s private life was not “novel.” 

The former Partner eventually appealed the matter to the High Court who overturned the fine on the basis that “there can be no hard or fast rule either that regulation under the Handbook may never be directed to the regulated person’s private life, or that any/every aspect of [their] private life is liable to scrutiny. But Principle 2 or Principle 6 may reach into private life only when conduct that is part of a person’s private life realistically touches on [their] practise of the profession or the standing of the profession.” 

Although Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Stewart gave a concluding remark in their judgment that “popular outcry is not proof that a particular set of events give rise to any matter falling within a regulator’s remit” it seems that many firms do not wish to risk reputational repercussions of a staff member potentially being found to be in breach. 

Social media & sanctions

Firms are now more likely to take steps to end a professional’s employment to avoid consequences for their wider workforce, business or community. One of the Big 4 accountancy firms was scrutinised after a Senior Partner was found to be having an affair with a junior employee. Although the FRC did not intervene directly in this instance, they emphasised the need for firms to have clear guidelines in place to manager any relationships which could influence professional judgement. 

Seemingly with a similar wish to avoid potential wider repercussions, Westminster City Council suspended one of their social workers after they shared gender-critical views on Facebook. Social Work England’s (SWE) Fitness to Practice rules include undertakings not to “behave in a way that would bring into question … suitability to work as a social worker while at work, or outside of work” and “use technology, social media or other forms of electronic communication unlawfully, unethically, or in a way that brings the profession into disrepute.” 

After a complaint was made against the social worker to the regulator, they launched an investigation and found the posts to be “discriminatory in nature.” SWE originally suggested that a one-year warning be imposed before later withdrawing this proposal and discontinuing the case. Ultimately, the social worker took both her employer and SWE to an Employment Tribunal, which she won on the basis that her social media posts fell within her “protected rights for freedom of thought and freedom to manifest her beliefs.”

Although, in this case, many may agree that the content of the social worker’s posts contained offensive remarks which may bring into question her suitability to work with vulnerable members of the community in her capacity as a social worker, the Tribunal’s eventual decision gives weight to the concluding remarks of Dame Victoria Sharpe and Mr Justice Stewart and reveals the complexities involved when personal opinions, especially those expressed on social media, conflict with professional standards. 

Interestingly, in late 2023, the NMC issued updated guidance which confirmed that “Nurses, midwives and nursing associates are free to express themselves and their protected beliefs outside of work. It is not our role to monitor what people say outside of, or unrelated to, professional practice” instead clarifying that action would only be taken in circumstances where there are suggestions of a “deep-seated attitudinal problem” or resulting criminal conviction that could mean a risk of harm to the public or the undermining of confidence in the profession. Significantly, the NMC guidance referred to above provides examples of when they will consider taking action against a regulated individual. 

Balancing trust & privacy

Although the examples above differ in nature, several key implications emerge for those working in regulated industries. This includes the need for clear boundaries and policies. There is a fine balance between professional conduct and personal freedoms. The examples above demonstrate the difficulties that both regulators and regulated professionals have in understanding when is private life no longer private. 

The importance of public trust in regulated professions cannot be overstated. The actions of a professional, both inside and outside the workplace, can influence perceptions of competence, integrity, and trustworthiness. However, there is also the need to avoid overreach in areas where personal conduct does not directly affect professional responsibilities.

Ultimately, it appears that regulatory bodies are increasingly willing to hold professionals accountable for their behaviour outside of the workplace — but this should only be when it has a tangible impact on their ability to carry out their professional duties or pose a risk to the profession’s reputation. It is crucial for regulators to maintain a fair and transparent approach, carefully considering the context in which personal conduct is scrutinised, ensuring that the balance between personal privacy and professional integrity remains. 

This ongoing debate highlights a broader challenge facing regulated industries today. 

Drawing the line: context, proportionality and professionalism

There is an ongoing tension across regulated professions in defining where the line is drawn between private conduct and professional accountability. The growing influence of digital communication and increased public visibility means that regulated professionals are more exposed than ever before – not just in how they work, but in how they live. While regulatory oversight plays an essential role in maintaining public trust, it must be applied with care, nuance, and a clear understanding of context.

Regulators must avoid adopting a blanket approach and instead assess each case on its individual facts, ensuring that any interference with private life is justified and proportionate. Reputational and personal consequences can follow when the boundaries become blurred. As professionals, we must remain aware of our responsibilities, but equally, regulators must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms which underpin a fair and balanced regulatory system.