Following changes to the fundamental principle of professional behaviour in the 2025 edition of ICAEW's Code of Ethics, ICAEW has created case studies to illustrate types of behaviour that would and would not be of disciplinary interest.
These case studies are representative examples of typical scenarios ICAEW commonly sees in conduct reports, rather than actual cases. They are intended to help members understand the types of behaviour that may constitute poor conduct and lead to disciplinary action. Members are encouraged to use the examples to assess their own conduct in analogous circumstances.
A working trip abroad
During a week-long business trip abroad, Aisha, a partner at an accountancy firm, invites her team, including a junior colleague, Alex, out for dinner. After the dinner, Aisha privately invites Alex to her hotel room and makes repeated suggestive remarks, ignoring Alex’s clear discomfort and refusal. Alex manages to leave but the following day, Aisha jokes about the incident in front of other colleagues, causing Alex further embarrassment.
Alex raises a complaint about Alisha’s behaviour with their employer. Following an internal investigation the firm consider the matter may amount to sexual harassment and report the complaint to ICAEW under Disciplinary Bye-law 6.1.
Analysis
The Conduct Committee considers the evidence. Aisha asserts that the incident took place away from the office, in private and outside of work hours following a social dinner and is therefore not in breach of the ICAEW Code. She cites her intoxication as a mitigating factor and provides testimonials from colleagues who vouch for her general good character and behaviour.
The Committee does not accept that Aisha’s conduct occurred in her personal life. The business trip context and the fact that Alex is a colleague link her behaviour to her professional life. Aisha and her team would not have been present at the meal had it not been for their working relationships. The power imbalance between Aisha, a partner, and Alex, a junior colleague, combined with their evident distress, makes the conduct particularly serious and Aisha more culpable.
As a partner, Aisha is expected to treat all team members with respect during the trip. Her unwanted sexual behaviour infringed Alex’s dignity, and her actions the following day victimised them for refusing to engage. The fact that other colleagues witnessed her inappropriate behaviour further aggravates the discredit caused to Aisha and the profession. A 'reasonable-and-informed third party would likely view Aisha’s actions as a failure to treat Alex with respect and dignity.
Inappropriate social media use
Benedict, an ICAEW Chartered Accountant, uses his social media account for personal purposes and enjoys engaging in political debates with other platform users. His bio mentions his profession and the accountancy firm where he is employed. Benedict regularly comments about political issues in his posts and in comments to other users’ posts. On several occasions over a period of a year, he makes highly inflammatory comments using derogatory stereotypes and language which are considered offensive by other platform users. The account is public, and users mention Benedict’s professional status in the comments.
ICAEW receive several reports from social media users about the comments supported by screenshots of the posts. Benedict accepts that some users found his comments offensive and apologises. However, in mitigation he defends the posts as being made on his personal account, during personal time and amount to his freedom to express his legitimately held religious and political beliefs.
Analysis
The Conduct Committee weigh up the evidence. There has to be a fair balance between respect of Benedict’s private life and the public interest in the regulation of the profession. The Committee note that the comments were made frequently, and other users had expressed their public concern that they found them offensive. While it is not for ICAEW to regulate political opinions, in this case the language used could be considered by a 'reasonable-and-informed third party' to be discriminatory and seriously offensive. Conduct in personal life which involves serious “moral turpitude” will be considered as giving rise to discredit under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.
Even though Benedict made the comments in a personal capacity, by associating his professional status with his social media account, Benedict has linked the posts to his identity as a chartered accountant. A 'reasonable-and-informed third party' would likely find these actions discrediting due to the public nature of the tweets and their offensive content which could reflect poorly on the profession. It should be noted however, that even without a clear connection to Benedict’s professional life, threats of violence, racist abuse or dishonesty on social media are also likely to be considered serious enough to undermine confidence in the profession. Ethical obligations apply both online and offline.
Rude emails sent to colleagues
Collette, a manager at an accountancy firm, receives negative feedback from her supervisor about her team management style. Upset, Collette sends a series of late-night emails to her team criticising their performance. In one email, she singles out a specific team member, accusing them of incompetence. Collette’s colleagues complain about her behaviour to HR. Before the investigation concludes, Collette resigns, citing stress and unfair treatment. After leaving, she sends an angry email to her former supervisor containing foul language. The firm report the matter to ICAEW under Disciplinary Bye-law 6.1.
Analysis
ICAEW’s Conduct Department investigates the allegations, but Collette refuses to provide formal representations, citing unfair treatment and ongoing employment tribunal proceedings against her former employer. The case is referred to the Conduct Committee on the basis that Collette’s behaviour was below the standards reasonably expected of an ICAEW member.
The Committee determines that the emails were sent in the context of Collette’s professional role, as they involved work colleagues. They consider whether her behaviour brought discredit to the profession by breaching the requirements of professional behaviour, in particular due to the lack of respect shown to the colleague particularly where the email was copied to other work colleagues. The Committee notes that the language was unprofessional in the context of the expected standards of Collette’s employer and undermined workplace relationships. The Committee also notes:
- the emails were sent on more than one occasion and therefore it was not an isolated incident;
- the foul language used demonstrated a lack of respect, even though the emails did not include threats or racist language.
Private employment or civil disputes do not automatically trigger disciplinary action. However, conduct considered in such disputes may breach the Code of Ethics and therefore will also be relevant for ICAEW. The Committee concludes that from a professional behaviour perspective, Collette’s actions were serious enough that they undermine confidence in the profession and therefore warrant disciplinary action.
Inappropriate behaviour on holiday
Dinesh, an ICAEW Chartered Accountant, goes on holiday with friends and gets into a heated argument at a beachside bar. He raises his voice during the exchange, uses expletives and knocks over a chair. A bystander records part of the argument and posts it online. Later that evening, while intoxicated Dinesh breaks a lamp in his hotel room. Dinesh apologises to the hotel the next morning and offers to pay for the damage. The hotel accepts his apology and does not take any action against him. Although the clip of Dinesh arguing at the bar does not identify him, he decides to self-report his conduct to ICAEW.
Analysis
The term ‘professional life’ in paragraph 115.1 A2 refers to conduct connected to a member’s working life, such as interactions with colleagues or clients, or instances where the member identifies themselves as a chartered accountant. In Dinesh’s case, while his behaviour was poor, it occurred entirely in his personal life. Chartered accountants are expected to treat others fairly and with respect in their professional life, but Dinesh’s actions had no connection to his professional identity or an accountancy context.
It is not clear whether the damage to the lamp was accidental, however crucially, the conduct was not so serious that it would be capable of damaging the profession’s reputation or undermining public trust. Additionally, there is no evidence that Dinesh broke any laws or faced criminal prosecution which would result in a breach of the Disciplinary Bye-laws. As a result, no further action is taken.
Team building activity
During an annual away day activity organised by his employer, Enrico, a senior manager, makes several inappropriate comments to colleagues and repeatedly targets a junior team member with jokes and personal remarks about their sexual orientation. This causes them visible discomfort. Following the event, several colleagues raise complaints about Enrico’s conduct with their employer. Enrico’s employer has identified non-compliance with laws and regulations under Section 260 of the Code of Ethics and reports the matter to ICAEW. Enrico admits to making the comments and expresses remorse but insists they were light-hearted and not intended to offend. He also argues that the event was a social occasion and not directly part of his professional role.
Analysis
The case is referred to the Conduct Committee who consider the evidence, including detailed witness testimony from Enrico’s colleagues. While the event took place outside the office, it was a firm-organised activity, and Enrico attended in his capacity as a senior manager. The Committee are satisfied that the conduct took place in a professional context, discredits the profession and falls significantly short of the standards reasonably expected of a member. This is because the Committee finds that Enrico’s remarks were seriously offensive, given the personal and sensitive nature of the comments.
They also note that as he targeted a junior colleague in a public setting, it amounted to bullying behaviour. Overall, as a senior manager, Enrico’s behaviour was unprofessional, caused serious embarrassment to his colleagues and undermined the trust they had in him. The Committee issue a disciplinary sanction, reminding Enrico of his responsibility to uphold respect, dignity, and fairness in all professional settings, including work-related social events.
More support on professional and personal conduct
Alongside these case studies, ICAEW has published additional guidance on the important change to the application material within the fundamental principle of professional behaviour within the 2025 edition of the ICAEW Code of Ethics.
Support on the 2025 Code
Access guidance and support on the 2025 edition of ICAEW's Code of Ethics, including the evolving role and mindset of accountants and new provisions on technology.
ICAEW Code of Ethics 2025
PDF (3,876kb)
The 2025 edition of the Code comes into effect on 1 July.
DownloadGuidance and support