Probably
For an employer to be held liable for the tort of an employee the common law requires that the tortious act of the employee be committed in the course or scope of the employment.
It is the nature of that which the employee is employed to do on behalf of the employer that determines whether the wrongdoing is within the scope of the employment … the identification of what the employee was actually employed to do and held out as being employed to do that is central to any inquiry about course of employment”
CCIG INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ABN 57 602 889 145) v SCHOKMAN [2023] HCA 21
Participation in the meeting is within the scope of your employment, so any tort you commit while doing that is in the course of your employment, and the employer is vicariously liable. If the employer could demonstrate that you have been explicitly told/trained not to drive while holding meetings illegally on your laptop, then they have a defence that that specific combination was not in the course of your employment - i.e. having meetings is, having meetings on your laptop while driving isn't.
In general, illegality by the employee does not break the vicarious liability; after all, torts are illegal. Even criminality does not necessarily break it; employers have been held vicariously liable for sexual abuse committed by employees if the employment could provide circumstances for the commission of the offence Prince Alfred College Incorporated v. ADC [2016] HCA 37.
While most vicarious liability claims are common law based, there are some statutory provisions that narrow or broaden the scope. For example:
For example, under s 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), an employer is liable for the acts of its employees ‘in connection with their employment’ unless the employer establishes it took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee engaging in that conduct.
The phrase ‘in connection with their employment’ is broad – broader, in fact, than ‘in the course of their employment’.