Associate Professor Marta Rychert, Professor Kate Diesfeld, Professor Lois Surgenor, Dr Kate Kersey, Ms Olivia Kelly, Professor Ian Freckelton
1SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand, 2Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 3University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, 4University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 5Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 6Melbourne Law School, Melbourne, Australia
Biography:
Dr Marta Rychert is an Associate Professor at SHORE & Whāriki Research Centre, College of Health, Massey University, New Zealand. Her expertise lies at the intersection of health, policy and law, with particular focus on disciplinary law and drug policy. She is the Rutherford Discovery Fellow of the NZ Royal Society Te Apārangi, and serves as a co-Editor-in-Chief of the international journal “Drugs, Habits and Social Policy”.
Abstract:
Disciplining employees for conduct outside work is controversial because of privacy concerns. Lawyers and other regulated professionals may be sanctioned for misconduct outside work because of negative impacts on the reputation of their profession or fitness to practise. Little is known about the frequency and types of private conduct that attracts discipline, how the disciplinary bodies establish the boundaries between “professional” and “private” lives and how shifting social norms shape disciplinary responses. The aim of this study was to explore the frequency and key features of disciplinary decisions involving misconduct outside work. We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 538 written decisions issued between 2017 and 2021 by three disciplinary tribunals in New Zealand: Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal, and Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. One in four disciplinary decisions involved behaviour that occurred wholly (19%) or partially (6.3%) outside work. Rates of misconduct that occurred wholly outside professional context were lower among lawyers (5%) and health practitioners (8%) than teachers (27%), and most private misconduct involved criminal convictions. Our qualitative analysis highlights how tribunals assess the temporal, spatial, and substantive dimensions of conduct outside work and how they construct the boundary between professional and private life. We identify contrasting tribunal logics (e.g., “binary” view of lawyers’ life versus “holistic” view of teachers’ life with expectations of role-modelling behaviour) and discuss profession-specific risk factors for misconduct outside work. These findings contribute to understanding of how professional regulation and discipline responds to evolving social norms and expectations of personal conduct.