Professional behaviour and the junior accountant: social media, private life and the limits of professional scrutiny

Part 3 of a three-part series on professional behaviour and conduct for junior accountants

The first blog in this series explored the revised professional behaviour framework introduced by the ICAEW and ICAS Codes of Ethics and considered the distinction between professional and personal life. The second examined workplace scenarios involving bullying, harassment, discrimination and abusive conduct, and the circumstances in which such behaviour may attract regulatory scrutiny.

This final article considers what is often the most challenging aspect of the framework: where the boundary lies between a junior accountant’s private life and their professional obligations.

Most accountants appreciate that misconduct in the workplace may have regulatory consequences. Perhaps the more difficult question is whether behaviour that takes place entirely outside working hours, outside the office and even in a personal capacity can nevertheless become a matter of professional concern.

The ICAEW’s guidance recognises that conduct in a member’s personal life can still bring discredit to the profession, although it generally requires more serious conduct than behaviour occurring in a professional setting. The profession continues to recognise the importance of an individual’s private life and freedom of expression, but those rights are not without limits where public confidence in the profession is concerned.

Some situations are relatively straightforward – criminal conduct has long been capable of attracting regulatory scrutiny regardless of whether it occurs in a member’s professional or personal life. The ICAEW’s guidance makes clear that serious criminal convictions in a member’s personal life are likely to bring discredit upon the profession, particularly where the conduct is capable of undermining public trust and confidence.

However, the existence of a criminal offence is not a prerequisite for regulatory action. Many conduct concerns considered by professional regulators involve behaviour that may never result in criminal proceedings but nevertheless raises questions regarding public confidence in the profession.

The more difficult cases are often those where different frameworks overlap. Conduct may give rise to internal disciplinary action, regulatory scrutiny and, in some cases, criminal allegations, depending on the particular facts. The examples below explore some of those grey areas.

Social media and professional identity

A junior accountant operates a personal social media account on which they regularly discuss political and social issues. Their profile identifies them as an ACA student and names the accountancy firm where they work. During an online discussion concerning religious views on same-sex marriage, the accountant argues that marriage should only be recognised between a man and a woman. In the course of the debate, however, they make a number of comments describing gay people in derogatory terms. The comments attract criticism from other users and screenshots are subsequently circulated online. A complaint is made to their employer and professional body.

This scenario is likely to be uncomfortable for many professionals because it involves a subject area where several competing considerations arise. On one hand, the accountant may argue that the comments were made on a personal account, during personal time and reflect genuinely held beliefs. On the other hand, they are identified as an accountant on their page, and regulators have a legitimate interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession.

In the ICAEW’s social media case study in the Professional Behaviour Guidance, the Conduct Committee considered inflammatory and offensive comments made on a personal account where the individual’s professional status was identifiable. The Committee noted the need to strike a fair balance between the individual’s private life and freedom of expression and the public interest in regulating the profession. However, it concluded that comments which a reasonable and informed third party could regard as discriminatory and seriously offensive were capable of bringing discredit upon the profession.

It is important to distinguish between expressing a lawful opinion and expressing that opinion in a manner that is abusive, discriminatory or degrading. The former will not ordinarily be the concern of a professional regulator. The latter may be.

The important point for junior accountants is that regulators are unlikely to be concerned simply because an individual expresses an opinion on a controversial issue. The focus is more likely to be on the nature of the language used, whether the comments target protected characteristics, the extent of publication and whether the individual can readily be identified as a member of the profession.

This approach is not unique to the accountancy profession. Similar issues have arisen across other regulated professions. In 2025, the High Court upheld a solicitor’s strike-off arising from offensive and antisemitic tweets posted from a personal account identifying him as a lawyer, demonstrating how conduct that an individual may regard as personal can nevertheless have professional consequences where there is a sufficient connection to their professional identity.

As social media increasingly blurs the distinction between personal and professional identities, the question is often not whether the account was personal, but whether the conduct is sufficiently serious to undermine public confidence in the profession.

When does a social occasion stop being a work event?

A junior accountant attends their firm’s Christmas party. The official event ends at midnight, but a group of junior colleagues continue the evening at a nearby pub. During the course of the evening, the accountant repeatedly directs unwanted sexual comments towards a colleague despite being asked to stop. Several colleagues witness the incident, and concerns are subsequently raised with HR. The firm must then consider whether it has reporting obligations to its regulator.

At first glance, this may appear to be a purely private social occasion. The formal work event has ended, attendance at the pub is voluntary, and the individuals are spending time together outside working hours. Many junior accountants would assume that conduct in this setting falls entirely within their personal life. However, the distinction is not always straightforward.

The ICAEW’s guidance emphasises that conduct may fall within a member’s professional life even where it occurs away from the office and outside normal working hours. Social events involving colleagues are specifically identified as situations that may retain a sufficient connection to a member’s professional role. The analysis is therefore unlikely to focus solely on the time or location of the conduct. Instead, regulators may consider the wider context, including why the individuals were together and the nature of the relationships between them.

In this scenario, several factors point in different directions. The accountant may argue that they were socialising privately with friends after the organised event had ended. However, the individuals present are colleagues, the gathering arose directly from a work function and the conduct occurred in the context of ongoing workplace relationships.

The nature of the conduct will also be relevant. ICAEW’s guidance makes clear that harassment is viewed particularly seriously because of its potential to undermine dignity, trust and confidence in the profession. Whilst behaviour of this nature might also engage an employer’s disciplinary processes and, depending on the circumstances, be a matter of criminal conduct, those considerations do not prevent it from being viewed through a regulatory lens.

A similar approach can be seen in the ICAEW’s own guidance, which includes a case study involving inappropriate conduct towards a junior colleague following a work dinner during an overseas business trip. The Conduct Committee rejected the suggestion that the behaviour fell outside the Code simply because it occurred away from the office and outside working hours. Likewise, in a disciplinary case involving a partner at a Big Four firm, inappropriate conduct towards a trainee during a ski trip attended by colleagues resulted in regulatory action. Significantly, the trip was not formally organised by the employer, yet the ICAEW nevertheless considered the wider professional context and the fact that the conduct occurred amongst colleagues.

Whether regulatory action would follow would depend on the individual facts. However, the example illustrates that the boundary between personal and professional life is not always determined by whether an event appears in a work calendar. There may be circumstances where a social occasion continues to have a sufficiently strong connection to professional life that conduct occurring during it remains capable of attracting regulatory scrutiny.

Conduct that remains private

Whilst on holiday with friends, a junior accountant becomes involved in a drunken argument at a bar. Raised voices are exchanged, offensive language is used and the incident causes embarrassment among those present. No criminal offences are committed, there is no connection to the accountant’s professional life and nobody involved knows that they are a chartered accountant or trainee.

Not every instance of poor behaviour will engage professional regulation. The ICAEW’s published guidance includes a similar example involving inappropriate behaviour whilst on holiday. The Committee concluded that although the conduct was unattractive, it occurred entirely within the member’s personal life, had no connection to the profession and was not sufficiently serious to damage public trust or confidence. Therefore, no disciplinary action followed.

This is an important reminder that professional regulators are not seeking to regulate every aspect of their members’ personal lives. There must ordinarily be some combination of seriousness, public visibility, connection to professional status or impact upon confidence in the profession before regulatory concerns are likely to arise. However, the analysis is highly fact-sensitive. If, for example, the accountant was readily identifiable as a member of the profession, had publicly associated themselves with their employer, or was otherwise presenting themselves in a professional capacity, the nexus between the conduct and their professional life may become stronger. As with many aspects of the professional behaviour framework, there is no bright-line rule and the outcome is likely to depend on the individual facts.

The challenge for junior accountants

Many junior accountants understandably assume that professional obligations end when the working day ends, whereas the reality is more nuanced. Regulators increasingly examine the context of conduct, its seriousness, the extent of any connection to professional status and the impact it may have on public confidence in the profession.

There is no bright line separating professional and personal life and the difficulty is that the boundaries remain unsettled. As the professional behaviour provisions are still relatively new, there is limited disciplinary authority interpreting them and societal expectations continue to evolve. As a result, whether conduct crosses the regulatory threshold will often depend heavily on the particular facts of the case.

For junior accountants entering the profession today, professional obligations extend beyond producing accurate financial information and complying with accounting standards. They also include maintaining the standards of behaviour expected of a regulated professional.

Whilst there will always be a distinction between professional and personal life, that distinction is not simply defined solely by office walls or working hours.

When to seek advice

If you are concerned that your conduct, whether inside or outside the workplace, may have regulatory implications, or if you are the subject of a complaint or investigation, obtaining specialist advice at an early stage can be invaluable. The way conduct issues are handled at the outset can often have a significant impact on the progression of a regulatory matter.

At Kingsley Napley, we advise accountants, trainees and firms on professional ethics, regulatory compliance, investigations and disciplinary proceedings. If you would like to discuss a professional conduct issue, please get in touch for a confidential consultation.