A tribunal has ruled that solicitor Mark Ian Williams – who offered his employer’s clients a self-created programme for people charged with sexual offences, among other personal support services – “blurred the lines between his regulated legal work and his private practice activities”.
The blurred lines surrounding Williams’ primary and secondary work led to legal and financial breaches, so the tribunal suspended him from practicing law for six months, and ordered him to pay legal costs of £5,000. The judgement was published on Tuesday (18 February).
How can HR professionals identify when an employee’s second job is interfering with their primary employment?
Speaking to HR magazine, Liam Hynes, senior people partner for the consultancy Hoomph, said: “Subtle shifts in performance, engagement and wellbeing often signal when external work is encroaching on an employee’s primary role.”
He advised employers to “establish clear disclosure policies, not just as a formality but as a safeguard for productivity and professional boundaries”.
Read more: What should HR do if an employee gets a second job?
Martin Tiplady, managing director of the consultancy Chameleon People Solutions, added: “It is fairly simple to identify distractions.”
He told HR magazine: “Obvious issues like short working days, fixation on working hours, incomplete work, tiredness, holding back, inflexibility and undue interest in commercial information all come to mind.
“An employer in touch with their staff should be able to identify those things, and probe and interrogate them when they arise. They have a duty to do so.”
Legal firm Frame Smith and Co employed Williams as a consultant in 2016, under terms that included a fee sharing arrangement for further legal work under the firm’s direction. But Williams began privately charging Frame Smith and Co’s clients on a monthly basis for what he called personal support services, without the firm’s knowledge. This personal support included a 24-hour telephone service, securing expertise from external professionals, and Williams’ own rehabilitation/therapeutic programme.
When members of the firm discovered this additional work, they immediately ended the consultancy arrangement with Williams, in June 2021.
The tribunal described Williams’ private work as “a very worthy vocation”, but also ruled that this work was “unfortunately ... an impediment to his professional objectivity”. Williams admitted he’d made mistakes, and highlighted that he’d created a protocol document to ensure more transparency about his professional and mentoring work.
“This is a really interesting case for it shows how close the boundary really is between primary and secondary employment, and the need – on both the employer’s and employee’s parts – to exercise care and caution,” said Tiplady.
“The important thing is that the employer has a policy, to explain what is allowable, to incorporate the need to seek permission into the contract of employment, to consider the implications of Working Times Regulations, and to be open and transparent in enforcing this across the organisation.
Read more: Are side hustles a threat to employment?
“Most issues arise when an employer is inconsistent in their application of the policy around secondary employment, or they are not policing it properly.”
Angela O'Connor, CEO of the consultancy HR Lounge, agreed that policy and guidelines are a good starting point for employers wanting to manage staff who have secondary jobs. She told HR magazine: “There should be clear guidelines around conflicts of interest, protecting sensitive information, and maintaining performance standards.”
Hynes added: “A proactive approach with regular touchpoints and an open culture ensures that secondary employment remains a complement, not a compromise, to the role. Secondary jobs can be great for personal growth, and bring fresh skills into the workplace. The trick is having clear, honest conversations, as well as policies.”
O'Connor agreed, noting that many employees can maintain multiple commitments without compromising the quality of their work, or the organisation’s interests.
The Williams judgement was filed on 12 February and published by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 18 February.
