When professional people are named in news articles for the wrongdoing of others: joint and several liability and the impact on digital reputation
Partners in law firms and accountancy practices sometimes find themselves linked to the professional or even criminal wrongdoing of their colleagues.
This issue of joint and several liability, where all partners may be held legally responsible for the actions of one partner, can lead to reputational harm that persists long after any legal case is closed, especially when inaccurate or misleading reports remain on the internet.
This case study explains how legal action under the right to be forgotten, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and other removal strategies can help innocent or minimally involved partners clear their names and move forward with their careers.
Right to be forgotten for accountants
Our client, who we will call Jonathan Carter, was a partner in a chartered accountancy firm. Along with two other partners, he found himself implicated in a complex fraud case that originated not from his own actions, but from the deliberate misconduct of another senior partner. It is important to understand that while Jonathan was legally a partner and therefore jointly liable for the acts of his co-partner, the fraud itself was orchestrated and carried out solely by another partner.
This crucial distinction was recognised by the sentencing judge, who imposed very different sentences: the partner who planned and executed the fraud received an immediate custodial sentence of several years, while Jonathan, due to his lack of active involvement and after the judge accepted that he only became aware of the wrongdoing after the fact, received a suspended sentence and a financial penalty.
This factual and legal disparity is often lost in online reporting. A large number of news websites, government portals, and credit agencies reported the matter in terms that overstated or misrepresented his role.
As is common with joint and several liability, all partners were named in the proceedings and subsequent reporting, even though the wrongdoing was carried out by just one. Because of the persistent presence of these articles online, Jonathan faced repeated questions about his integrity and professionalism, making it nearly impossible to secure new work, financing, or even personal peace of mind.
The impact of online news reports naming professionals
A key challenge for professionals in partnerships is that negative or inaccurate articles- especially on government or professional sites- often dominate search results.
This was the case for Jonathan, who found that the nature of joint and several liability meant that his name was included in coverage about a “major fraud”, when in fact the sentencing judge had specifically recognised his limited role.
Despite the court accepting he had no active involvement in the fraud, media and government sites described the firm’s directors collectively, giving the impression that all were equally culpable. The judge’s comments, which acknowledged that Jonathan’s actions were motivated by a genuine attempt to correct accountancy issues for the benefit of clients- once he became aware of them-and that he acted out of panic rather than any intent to benefit himself, were ignored by these reports.
The impact was severe and long-lasting. Jonathan lost valued clients, was repeatedly refused finance, and struggled to secure new roles or even basic professional opportunities, all because of outdated and misleading online information.
Beyond professional setbacks, the emotional toll was profound- he faced daily anxiety about what new clients or contacts might find online, lost confidence in both business and personal relationships, and felt unable to fully move forward with his life. For anyone facing a similar situation, where their name is unfairly linked to the wrongdoing of a partner, the consequences can be deeply damaging.
The public interest exception to the right to be forgotten: Why removing search results is difficult for accountants and other professionals
While the “right to be forgotten” under GDPR provides a path for many people to request the removal of outdated or inaccurate personal data, the situation for professional people such as accountants, lawyers, or directors is much more complex when the conviction or wrongdoing relates directly to their professional life.
This is frequently cited as a specific exception to both the right to be forgotten and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act when it comes to delisting search results or removing online articles. Public interest is often considered much greater in cases involving professional misconduct or criminal convictions that touch on a person's career, particularly in regulated sectors like accountancy.
In Jonathan’s case, there were several significant complications. First, his conviction, even though minor and arising from the conduct of another partner, was directly related to his profession and to his work as a partner in the accountancy firm.
This meant that requests for delisting or removal faced strong resistance, as search engines and publishers commonly argue that the public has a right to know about matters affecting trust in regulated professionals.
Second, these were criminal convictions, and the main partner received a substantial immediate prison sentence. This heightened the seriousness of the case in the eyes of both publishers and search engines, making delisting an uphill struggle.
The challenges for professionals in these circumstances are far greater than for most individuals, and each argument for removal must be carefully constructed and strongly evidenced.
Building a successful content removal strategy when reporting is widespread and high-profile
The reporting in this case was widespread, intense, and came from a broad spectrum of publishers. Stories appeared on leading professional websites both for solicitors and accountants often citing the case as a cautionary example.
In addition, a significant number of articles and official press releases were published on government platforms, including HMRC and Companies House, and most critically, across all the major credit reference and business intelligence agencies.
Negative details about our client’s situation appeared rapidly in credit reports, which in practice prevented him from obtaining credit, loans, and in some cases, even opening bank accounts.Each of these areas brought its own unique challenges, having to be addressed step by step, with strategy, patience, persistence and considerable skill.
In short, the story was everywhere, and because of the volume and authority of these publishers and agencies, it was extremely visible online and almost impossible to ignore for anyone searching our client’s name or reviewing his financial standing.
Gathering evidence and building a content removal case under challenging, high-profile circumstances
With such widespread and authoritative reporting, the very first step was to build a compelling case supported by robust evidence. We started by obtaining the full transcript of the judge’s sentencing remarks from the Crown Court, as these remarks directly addressed our client’s minimal involvement and provided the clearest legal evidence of mitigating circumstances.
Alongside this, we commissioned a range of professional reports, including mental health assessments that outlined the emotional toll and financial expert opinions quantifying the ongoing losses caused by continued publication.
With this evidence, we could show clearly that the story’s continued presence online was both factually wrong and disproportionate. It was also unjust, given our client’s actual conduct and the consequences they had already faced.
Every element of this evidence was chosen to help us overcome the major hurdles for professionals seeking delisting, especially the public interest arguments made by government sites, search engines, and professional publishers. All data contributed to showing that, in this case, the reporting had become excessive, punitive, and harmful far beyond what was fair.
Targeted, platform-specific approaches to facilitate removal of widespread news and government reporting
With evidence in hand, our next step was a carefully coordinated, platform-specific campaign targeting the wide range of publishers involved. The sheer scale of coverage required us to break down the problem and deal with each category methodically.
Government websites such as HMRC, Companies House, and related regulatory bodies demanded a legalistic and formal approach, referencing the judge’s actual sentencing remarks, rehabilitation law, and data protection rights. These sites tend to resist removal requests by default, prioritising public interest, but with persistent legal argument and a focus on factual accuracy and proportionality, we were able to achieve redaction, anonymisation, or sometimes even full removal.
Professional and industry publishers, including many prominent accountancy and solicitor news sites, often required a combination of evidence-led negotiation and demonstration of harm. Some of these articles were used as case studies by other firms, so our correspondence needed to be especially robust, citing not just the mitigating facts but also the practical and reputational consequences for our client.
We showed how reporting had shifted from legitimate public interest to ongoing, excessive harm. In some cases, correction or anonymisation was secured; in others, outright removal or technical de-indexing from search engines was negotiated. For every platform, we adapted our tactics, recognising unique editorial standards and legal obligations.
We were patient and persistent, recognising that successful removal would require not only legal pressure but clear demonstration of disproportionality and continuing real-world impact on the professional’s life. This stepwise approach ensured progress even in the face of slow or hostile responses, and allowed us to chip away at the overwhelming volume of reporting, one publisher at a time.
Why public interest is a specific issue in these cases
When a professional is convicted of wrongdoing in connection with their work, the law and public policy treat that situation differently from personal or unrelated criminal matters. This is because of the special position of trust and responsibility held by regulated professionals.
Search engines and publishers will usually argue that the public has a legitimate need to know about any conduct that could impact someone’s trustworthiness or competence in a professional capacity. This “public interest” argument is especially strong where the conviction directly relates to the individual’s role, for example, fraud committed while acting as a partner in an accountancy firm.
The rationale is that members of the public, clients, and employers may need to know about this history to make informed decisions about who they trust with their finances, legal affairs, or other sensitive matters. Furthermore, certain professions are subject to regulatory oversight and codes of conduct, making transparency about previous misconduct a matter of industry and public safety as well.
Due to this, right to be forgotten applications are frequently refused for professionals unless it can be shown that the reporting is inaccurate, disproportionate, or no longer serves any valid public interest (for example, where the conviction is long since spent, or the reporting grossly overstates involvement).
In Jonathan’s case, and in similar cases, the challenge is heightened by the fact that the wrongdoing is tied directly to his profession. Even if the individual’s role was minor, the public interest exception means delisting is never automatic. The legal team must provide compelling evidence of the client’s minimal involvement, the unfairness or disproportionality of continued reporting, and the lasting harm being caused, in order to overcome this substantial barrier.
Overcoming public interest arguments in delisting professional misconduct and criminal conviction reports
Once responses from publishers had been exhausted- or where articles could not be removed at source- we prepared and submitted "right to be forgotten" applications to Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The presence of spent convictions directly relating to the profession made these applications challenging, but our comprehensive evidence (including court documents, professional opinions, and proof of ongoing damage) was eventually persuasive.
Google, for example, initially rejected the application, citing professional public interest. Only after repeated and patient submissions, with ever stronger evidence of disproportionality and unfairness, did they agree to delist the most damaging URLs. The process was lengthy, and success required adapting our arguments to each platform’s policies and practices.
Ongoing reputation management for accountants and professionals: Monitoring, rapid response and long-term results
Given the relentless nature of internet reporting and the high risk that negative news or updates can resurface at any time, we set up a continuous reputation monitoring and response subscription for our client. This SEO-driven, proactive approach allowed us to detect new online mentions or articles as soon as they appeared, and to act quickly to address them.
Whether it was contacting a new publisher, issuing a fresh removal request, or updating search engines with evidence of successful removals elsewhere, our goal was to prevent old issues from repeatedly damaging our client’s prospects. This long-term, hands-on strategy is essential for any accountant or regulated professional whose name has appeared online in connection with professional misconduct or the actions of others.
Through persistent legal advocacy, technical expertise, and an understanding of both partnership liability and UK data protection law, we successfully achieved the removal or de-indexing of the most damaging reports.
While total erasure is not always possible, amendments, corrections, and significant reductions in search visibility were achieved, giving our client the ability to move forward in their career and rebuild both professional and personal life.
Lawyers' thoughts on the case
This case demonstrates the often-overlooked impact of joint and several liability in the digital age, where even a minor or peripheral involvement in a partner’s wrongdoing can follow a professional for years, regardless of the true facts.
It also illustrates just how challenging and complex these cases are, especially when public interest arguments and professional standards are at play. Our client’s matter became a test of both legal perseverance and strategic creativity.
The presence of highly visible, widely shared reports on authoritative government, professional, and credit agency platforms meant there was no simple solution. Every avenue required tenacity and careful legal construction, and success only came through a painstaking, stepwise process over a period of negotiation, escalation, and evidence gathering.
Public interest was the core challenge. Unlike ordinary defamation or privacy cases, here the conviction was directly linked to our client’s profession and thus the argument for public access to the information was always strong.
Search engines, publishers, and regulators all initially resisted removal on this basis, frequently citing regulatory transparency, client protection, and the seriousness of the original charges, even though the sentencing judge had recognised the minor, panic-driven role played by our client.
At every stage, we had to go above and beyond to demonstrate that the ongoing publication had tipped from legitimate transparency into disproportionate, unfair, and damaging territory- using not just legal argument but evidence of practical and psychological harm. What truly made a difference was persistent, evidence-led advocacy.
We had to adapt our arguments for every audience: government portals, industry news, credit agencies, and search engines each have their own procedures and risk profiles. Where some routes were blocked, we worked methodically through alternatives, never giving up even after repeated refusals. Ultimately, it was this approach that enabled us to win not just legal victories, but real-world results that allowed our client to rebuild reputation and career.
For partners in accountancy firms and other professionals, the lesson is clear: these battles are hard-fought, but not hopeless. Where your role has been mischaracterised or overstated online and your conviction is spent, there are still real legal and practical remedies available. The GDPR right to be forgotten, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and careful, persistent legal work can help you take control of your digital reputation and, in time, move forward with your life.
