Regulators and Non-Financial Misconduct: A New Era of Accountability

This shift, particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement, reflects broader cultural changes that demand greater scrutiny of workplace behaviour and power dynamics.

Historically, regulatory bodies like the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) primarily focused on financial compliance and professional conduct directly related to industry-specific duties. However, in recent years, they have increasingly intervened in cases involving sexual misconduct, abuse of power, and other ethical failings. As Georgina Calvert-Lee (pictured), employment law specialist at Bellevue Law, notes, "The news that Jes Staley’s challenge to the FCA’s sanctions is heading to court next week is a reminder for everyone in a regulated industry that they’re accountable not just to their employer or own conscience, but also their regulator."

This growing involvement of regulators in non-financial misconduct cases underscores the changing expectations placed upon professionals in positions of power. Regulators are now seen as playing a critical role in maintaining public trust, ensuring that workplaces are free from discrimination, harassment, and abuse. The #MeToo movement acted as a catalyst for these changes, pushing institutions to confront the realities of entrenched misconduct and take decisive action against those who fail to uphold ethical standards.

Regulatory scrutiny, however, does not solely focus on the misconduct itself—it also extends to how individuals and institutions respond to investigations. Calvert-Lee warns, "It’s not always the misconduct itself that leads to sanctions, but how those under investigation respond. Employers and employees both need to take regulatory and internal investigations seriously, answering openly, honestly, and with care. Failing to do so can turn something that might have been handled internally into a much bigger, more public issue."

This is a crucial point. The manner in which individuals handle allegations and cooperate with investigations can often determine the severity of the consequences they face. Regulators are increasingly unwilling to tolerate obfuscation, evasion, or dishonesty. A failure to engage transparently can escalate a situation from an internal disciplinary matter to a full-blown legal confrontation, as evidenced by Staley’s case.

As the role of regulators continues to expand, businesses and professionals must adapt to this new reality. Compliance is no longer just about following financial regulations—it now involves upholding broader ethical standards. Institutions must invest in robust internal reporting mechanisms, foster cultures of transparency, and ensure that individuals in positions of power understand their heightened responsibilities.

The increasing involvement of regulators in non-financial misconduct cases is not just a passing trend—it represents a fundamental shift in how professional accountability is enforced. Those who fail to recognise this change risk not only their careers but also the reputations of the organisations they represent. As Staley’s case unfolds, it will serve as yet another reminder that the era of regulatory indifference to workplace misconduct is well and truly over.