The Hogan Lovells partner who was suspended for using his work computer to look at porn has now left the firm.

In November last year a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell*, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow alleyway, looked out of their window and saw the Hogan Lovells partner watching skin flicks at his desk. 

The Irwin Mitchell lawyer filmed the engrossed partner on a mobile phone and circulated it around their firm. The footage eventually made its way to staff at Hogan Lovells including the firm's HR department. At the time, Hogan Lovells said in a statement that "such behaviour is unacceptable" and that the firm had suspended the partner "pending a full internal investigation". Which ironically may have been exactly what the partner had been watching.

 

Snitches
Compulsory attire for HogLovers with windows facing Irwin Mitchell

 

A spokeswoman for the firm has now told RollOnFriday, "after our investigation we agreed that the partner would not return after their suspension period and they are no longer with the firm". She added, "this incident is not a reflection of who we are and the culture and inclusive values we stand for.”

RollOnFriday is not naming the partner because, stupid as the act was, they would hardly be the first lawyer to browse porn at work. However, as a reader commented on last year's story, most staffers who want to view NSFW content are savvy enough to "head to the bogs" with their smart phone.

*RollOnFriday would like to clarify that, at a perhaps misguided attempt to be funny, we referred to Irwin Mitchell as a "rival" firm to Hogan Lovells in our original story. The mainstream media that picked up on this took it literally and re-quoted the comment. One reader noted the "blatant trolling by ROF to refer to an IM lawyer as a ‘rival’ to a HogLover. IM is a two-time Golden Turd champ - it will take a lot more self-lovers at HL before it receives such an accolade". Other readers reserved their contempt for the firm by re-branding it as Irwin Snitchell.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 25 January 19 09:07

How can they say that this is not who they are?  In order to do that, they would presumably have to know that nobody there watches pron, which is frankly absurd.  Yes, I get that you shouldn't watch pron at work, but from a client's point of view, what really is the qualitative difference?

watchingbrief 25 January 19 09:49

At least the Hog Love partner wasn't circulating porn, unlike the Irwin Mitchell partner

Anon 25 January 19 10:32

Probably a lot more to it that this - if you’re stupid enough to watch pron on a work computer, chances are you’re stupid enough to have saved some too...

Tim L 25 January 19 12:03

I think we're missing the point here. If someone has worked hard enough that he becomes a partner, surely we can allow him to beat his meat at his desk occasionally?  Shame on you Hogan not so Lov Alls!

Anon 25 January 19 12:34

I feel very unconfortabe about the outcome here.   Of course, using a work computer to watch this stuff and being a partner on top (who should set an example) is foolish: but is it so bad that a career has to be ruined?   Nothing was ilegal, no one was hurt, no one else  is damaged. Could he not have been given a warning?  That said, perhaps the invesrigation uncovered more than this.    

Je Suis Monty Don l'Autobus 25 January 19 13:01

I've said it before and I'll say it again - who actually gives a **** if people watch pron at work? Nothing wrong with it. Indeed, given the hours city lawyers are forced to work, firms should really be providing regularly-sanitised w@nkstations. It's a human rights issue.

Porno Dave 25 January 19 13:48

Disgraceful outcome.  I hope the ambulance chasers are proud of the fact that somebody lost their job.  

Anonymous 25 January 19 15:29

Some people are jumping to conclusions. The article doesn't seem to say that he was fired, just that he left. I can imagine the partner wouldn't have wanted to stay there if in every internal meeting he went to staff knew him as the perv lawyer. At least he can start somewhere new and fresh and put this behind him (checking there's nobody behind him next time he surfs for smut)

Anonymous 25 January 19 15:46

“Yes, I get that you shouldn't watch pron at work, but from a client's point of view, what really is the qualitative difference?” Sticky hard copies. 

Anonymous 25 January 19 15:59

Madness if the poor blighter had walked a few hundred yards there are plenty of pubs and clubs where he could see the real thing for a few quid

Dan 25 January 19 16:15

If said man, or woman (probably a man) was watching porn, fair enough, however if he/she/ transgender fluid person was rubbing one out in the office, then this is justifiably a red card offence. Tempted as I am to self-pleasure in the office when bored/horny, I at least maintain the presence of mind to lock myself in the disabled toilet to avoid such an unfavourable outcome!

Anonymous 26 January 19 19:29

The HogLove Managing Partner will surely have leant on him - bollocks about the "the current climate", #metoo etc.

Warren 28 January 19 09:58

Meh.  Watching pron in the office is a relatively trivial thing in itself, the real problem is that it betrays a lack of judgment and awareness, especially in someone at partner level.  Also, as already pointed out, who knows what the mandatory IT hunt afterwards found.   

Anon 29 January 19 13:31

@Anon 25 Jan 19: "I feel very unconfortabe about the outcome here.   Of course, using a work computer to watch this stuff and being a partner on top (who should set an example) is foolish: but is it so bad that a career has to be ruined?   Nothing was ilegal, no one was hurt, no one else  is damaged. Could he not have been given a warning?  That said, perhaps the invesrigation uncovered more than this." I reckon you've been watching too much pron based on the number of typos in this post!

Dreadful 03 February 19 15:12

The real culprit may have been overlooked here. Why would another lawyer surreptitiously film a colleague from a afar? Was that so-called fellow member of the profession trying to enforce an unknown and non-existent ethical standard or just being a meddlesome & destructive busy body. Just appalling behavior and another example of how lawyers fail to stick together and be collegiate. It might have been more becoming on that lawyer to reach out to the partner in question or just ignore it. A very distant computer screen is hardly offensive unless of course that lawyer is a pervert!