Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.

The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.

On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.

The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.


​​​​​Friendly warning to HogLovers in the Danger Zone:
beware Irwin Mitchell's eagle-eyed pervert scouts.


RollOnFriday is not naming the partner, but has unavoidably narrowed down his office location to one side of the building.

In a statement, Hogan Lovells said, "We were made aware of an individual in our office mis-using their computer to watch adult material. Such behaviour is unacceptable and we have suspended them pending a full internal investigation". An insider said it was a case of "Hogan (Self) Lovells", although RollOnFriday has been unable to confirm just how much self-love the partner was expressing at the time.

Asked how he circumnavigated the firm's firewall, a spokeswoman for Hogan Lovells said, "We didn’t block access to websites unless they represented a cybersecurity risk (eg they have malware on them). The nature of our work for clients sometimes means we need to carry out investigations in areas which require us to have flexible access". But it seems one horny partner has brought the era of free browsing to an end: "We have reviewed and tightened this policy", she said.


Thank you for taking part in RollOnFriday's annual survey measuring satisfaction in private practice. We use the results to rank the UK's firms and write informative stories and reports. It takes mere seconds to complete (it takes a little longer if you add comments, which would be great). We don't take your name and so all answers you provide will be kept anonymous. In-house? Take the in-house poll instead.

Your firm
Your role
Your sex
How satisfied are you with your pay?
How satisfied are you with your career development?
How satisfied are you with your work/life balance?
How satisfied are you with the firm's management?
How satisfied are you with the firm's culture?
How satisfied are you with the office and amenities?
Tip Off ROF

Related News

This Week’s News

The content for this week is not available yet.


Anonymous 09 November 18 02:09

Typical Irwin Mitchell lawyer focussing on the view outside his window to avoid fee earning...

Anonymous 09 November 18 06:56

HL partner obvs an idiot. Would be a massive shame to lose a career over something so stupid. 

Out of interest in what area are IM in any way a "rival" of HL? AFAIK HL don't engage in ambulance chasing? 

Who cares? 09 November 18 07:03

Just to be clear: so the Hog Love partner was alone in his office watching some “adult material” (I presume he/she is an adult and that is wasn’t “hog love” material - sorry for the pun) and someone in another building thought it was an adequate and appropriate response to film him/her doing that and snitch him/her to Hog Love? Unless the partner in question was deliberately exposing him/herself on the window (which I would personally find amusing rather than offensive), shame on you, Irwin Mitchell snitch. You are definitely in need of doing what the Hog Love partner was watching. And now we all inevitable know on what side of your building you sit (not that anyone knows or cares about IM though).

Ally McBeal 09 November 18 07:04

Really? The IM lawyer felt the need to report it to HL? Presumably, given no police involvement, it wasn’t illegal content so why would you do that (unless you’re bitter that you’re working at IM rather than HL, of course).

I am more concerned that IM lawyers think it’s ok to snoop into the office on another solicitor.   And that they could see the computer screen!!

Anonymous 09 November 18 07:48

How long had the Irwin Mitchell solicitor being watching and filming for before handing over the evidence?

not good 09 November 18 08:20

What else can Irwin Mitchell see - Lovell's clients' confidential information on the screen? Time for some screen filters.

Anonymous 09 November 18 08:20

That pretty much sums up the ambulance chasing firm, Irwin Mitchell.

What are they even doing in London with their low grade trip snd slip rear end shunt work?

There were many ways in which something like this could have been dealt with but that assumes a basic level of compassion and decency.  The person who filmed this and then escalated it is a low life worm.



Fair game 09 November 18 08:20

A silly thing to do but the one who reported him and possibly cost him his career is the bigger tosser. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 09:07

Interesting to see how this is coming out in the comments.  Noone defending the HL partner (clearly a proper plonker) but almost unanimous agreement that the IM snitching is petty, unpleasant and unbecoming. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 09:10

I disagree, Fair game.  This was clearly orchestrated by IM as the only conceivable way in which their firm would be mentioned in the same sentence, or even article, as Hog Love.

Ladylawyer 09 November 18 09:19

Can’t believe anyone would think his behaviour is acceptable! He was watching presumably illegal adult content in a public space with his blinds open. Not to mention the sexual harassment issues of anyone, never mind a partner, doing anything sexual in the work place. Can you imagine having to work for him? 

Disgusting behaviour and he deserves to get fired. And if HL tolerate that sort of behaviour they deserve to be investigated for mysoginistic and inappropriate work place practices. 

Pedant 09 November 18 09:28

@LadyLawyer: whoever said it was 'illegal adult content'?  And whoever said there were any women on-screen?  Check yo' prejudices.

JACKING FOR THE LORD 09 November 18 09:28

I'm gonna' jack it where the sun always shines.
(He's gonna jack it)
Been spreading the word and now I need to ease my mind
(jackin' it, oh)
Been planting apple seeds, and while the apples grow
I'm gonna go out jackin' it in HogLove.

Jackin' it, jackin' it, jackety-jack
Spankin' it, jackin' it, spankety-smack.

I don't need no shirt no, gonna' take them pants right off.
(he's about to jack it)
On such a bright day, who needs underwear or socks?
(jack it, jack it, ho!)
Been around god's country, and there's one thing I know,
There's no better place for jackin' it than HogLove!

Jack it, jack it, jackety-jack
Spankin' it, spankin' it, smackety-smack.
Jackin' it, jackin' it, jackety-jack.
Spankin' it, spankin' it, smackety-smack.


Anonymous 09 November 18 09:38

Shame on the partner for watching porn at their desk. I wouldn't want to look out of my office window to see someone jacking off!

Anonymous 09 November 18 09:45

It does raise the question of what confidential material the Irwin Snitcher may have been reading over the Hog-Lover's shoulders before. Given the respective positions of the two firms, Hog-Lover's unlikely to have been interested in anything Snitcher was up to.

Dan 09 November 18 09:45

Sour grapes on behalf super snitch at IM, glancing across the alley with the envious eye of jealousy at his lawyer counterpart in his ivory castle (and considerably superior law firm)?

You've had your moment and it's cost him (or her, probably him) his/her career (and dignity).

Either way, enjoy your moment, you'll never work for Hogan Lovells mate!


Anonymous 09 November 18 09:57

@dan Sorry, but why would anyone want to work in an office where this happens? Think you should all stop focusing on whether the IM employee is jealous or a snitch and start focusing on how unacceptable this is...

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:12

Social mores change.  What is considered acceptable changes.  It will be interesting to see which direction our society turns in respect of pron.  Are we on a 'liberal' trajectory that will in future mean that this sort of thing becomes if not acceptable to all, then at least not as prone to condemnation as it is at present, much like swearing on TV?  Or is fourth-rate feminism and the #meetoo 'movement' going to endure to the extent that actually, the majority view will always hold this to be unacceptable, or perhaps even more unacceptable than it is at present?

If the up and downvotes here are indicative of wider societal feeling, we appear to be either liberalising, or perhaps merely turning into anonymous trolls.

Watch this space.

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:12

Why is it unacceptable?

Geezer obvs didn't know anyone outside the glass could see him and there's no suggestion anyone in his office was being subjected to watching it.

It's a waste of work time but it's a legal activity. I thought normalising sex work (and thus the customers) was a feminist cause?

LadyLawyer up above is surely a parody account. If not, what's wrong with "having to work for him". Do you walk about all day imagining none of your colleagues have ever had sex?

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:23

Who said the HL partner was alone at the time? Puts a different slant on the reporting of it. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:26

The person who reported this isn’t in the wrong here, as so many comments are suggesting.

Illegal or not, it’s inappropriate in the work place and could have put someone in a difficult position if they walked in. 


Anonymous 09 November 18 10:35

"Why is it unacceptable?"

Because it is unprofessional, and because whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, there are very many people who consider it to be utterly demeaning to women.

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:40

The IM lawyer who did this needs to do some serious reflection on his / her choices in this regard. What a ridiculously petty and nasty thing to do. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:42

uhm i think the trainee at IW filmed it, sent to his trainee mates at HL for a laugh, then got widely circulated and someone leaked it to HR. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:43

Frankly I do not see any crime being committed here.  Clearly a management/HR issue but 100% not the business of another law firm who frankly should not be snooping on another law firm. Clearly driven by a massive chip from IM

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:44

Everyone is in the wrong here.

The HL partner is in the wrong because they shouldn't be using work time and assets to watch adult content. If they wanted to do that (and assuming the content they were watching wasn't illegal), they should have done that on their own time and on one of their own devices.

The IM lawyer is also in the wrong because, while the HL partner shouldn't have been doing what they were doing, they had no right to watch and film them doing it and dobbing them into the firm seems a bit snitchy. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 10:47

"Because it is unprofessional, and because whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, there are very many people who consider it to be utterly demeaning to women. "

Agreed, it is unprofessional. However, it is not deemed unacceptable simply because many people consider it demeaning (or any other negative adjective). Things are not unacceptable simply because people don't like it. If that were true, everything would be unacceptable. Including your comment, and mine.

Jeeben 09 November 18 10:57

Unsurprising- Irwin Mitchell lawyer probably jealous that he works at a crap firm doing personal injury claims all day with hot desking so no space for himself to do the same 

Mercurial 09 November 18 11:26

Great that so many people are commenting, but isn't it too soon to pass judgment?

If he allowed himself to be seen in the office engaged in sexual activity (i.e. masturbating), then he only has himself to blame, albeit he didn't intend to harm anyone.  IM lawyer still doesn't come out of it great by releasing the film upfront and allowing it to leak.  Perhaps they thought it was evidence of a crime, but to me it seems more like covertly filming someone engaged in sexual activity and distributing it to the wider world without their consent.  Anyone care to comment if that is itself a crime?

If he was just watching porn, then OK he can't be allowed to get off scot-free, but seriously, the IM lawyer is the one at fault.

The comments that this was some orchestrated scheme by IM as a firm are just ridiculous.  If the IM lawyer had passed it on to IM HR in the first place, I am sure the whole thing would have been handled far more professionally than the current mess.


Anonymous 09 November 18 11:31

Hypothetically, if it was illegal material would IM lawyer now be guilty of copying and distributing?

Really? 09 November 18 11:33

Beyond the funny defence of firm hierarchy, these comments are alarming.

There are loads of legal things that are totally acceptable in life generally but inappropriate for a workplace. Should people start washing in buckets / practicing lap dancing in their office? Even when they think no-one is looking?

It’s a shared work space that requires respect for the other people who work there.

No the partner shouldn’t lose his/her job, and this isn’t about being a prude, or defending a ‘snitch’ (seriously, do you think you’re the Krays?) it’s about behaving with a modicum of respect for other people and calling someone out when they’re clearly not displaying that respect  

If you want some self-loving take yourself home, or to somewhere where other people might want to watch you.

ROF 2020 09 November 18 11:50

This has to be among the funniest news stories ever featured on this glorious, glorious website.

Bravo, truly.

Anonymous 09 November 18 11:54

@Shame on the Partner - it hasn't been suggested that the partner was jacking off any more than it has been suggested that the person doing the filming was jacking off.

QC Comment 09 November 18 12:03

As a matter of integrity, and, having regard to the potential effects on this person's career, would it not have been more appropriate for IM to search the 'offender' out and give him a private warning.  what IM have done may have devastating consequences.

Anonymous 09 November 18 12:17

Firstly, as someone who has had an addiction I sympathize with this whoever this is. Do it once, think you've got away with it, you do it again and again. I didn't get caught, I stopped myself by getting help. This guy needs help. That is not suggesting that his behaviour is not highly unprofessional, disrespectful to his firm and his colleagues (even though he was clearly doing this in private), and possibly fraudulent (was he billing that time?). It is all those things. An internal investigation is correct and the right step. But the power of any addiction is immense, and if you've not had it you cannot understand it. Secondly, if I had noticed someone doing that, I would probably have made an attempt to contact him directly and subtly and say mate, you've got to stop that shit, I'm probably not the only person that can see you. Filming it first, then going straight to HR? It's clear who the total wanker is in this situation.

The Seatwarmer 09 November 18 12:22

He’s got to be an old boy. Everyone under 50 knows how to browse pron on a smart phone, and heads to the bogs. 

Who cares? 09 November 18 12:23

If only the HL partner had read this article...



Anonymous 09 November 18 12:38

I feel awful for the partner. Yes, what he did was stupid - of course you shouldn't watch porn on work's dime - BUT, he thought he was doing so privately and wasn't causing anybody any harm. As far as I can tell, he wasn't watching or doing anything illegal.


For him to potentially lose his job, and most definitely have his reputation in tatters, over this is not fair - just my view.


Irwin Mitchell should equally have been more professional and sensitive in all of this - having a junior film it and share it with mates across the City circuit, and then having a senior send it on to HR, is not the right way of going about things.

Irwin Snitchell 09 November 18 12:41

The perv filming it should be arrested and prosecuted for voyeruism.  

ROF please unmask the Peeping Tom.

No doubt the Snitchel ambukance chaser at its window trying to spy a car accident so it could run down and give out a business card.  They saw a different kind of shunt but poor form to film it and then grass it up and publicise it.


Serial Tosser 09 November 18 13:00

Three things come to mind here.

1 - It doesn't say whether the partner was in a singleton office, which I assume according to his status  that he was, so this was actually done in private.

2 - Watching pornography is not a crime and again it seems like he was doing this in private.

3 - If he is a partner, then the law firm is partly his by way of his equity contribution so he is the employer not the employee.


It seems that this was unfortunate, as had the IM snitcher been working and not deliberately filming what was on the partners PC, this would have been a non story.


How many of those reading this have done something in their office that they shouldn't have been, whether it was something of a sexual nature or something else!


IT Pleb 09 November 18 13:57

Legal IT pleb here.

Watching pron in the office is rife and has been since t'internet was born, however most people have switched to using their phone.  I know this because often the phones are still connected to the "guest wifi" and it shows up in the internet browsing logs (we pretend it's anonymous, but we can see the name you gave your phone...).

Plenty of people still boshing in the meeting rooms in the evenings, and store cupboards in the day (CCTV in the corridors gives a good clue).

Do we think that's More, Less or Equally unacceptable to bosh with a partner than to bosh in solitude?


Anonymous 09 November 18 13:58

As someone who used to work at IM, perhaps I can shed some light on the fact that both offices have ceiling to floor glass windows and it’s not controversial to accept that due to the proximity of the buildings that if you look out of your window - thinking or to check if it’s raining for example - then you will inadvertently end up glancing into the other offices. 

Suddenly concerned 09 November 18 14:05

IT pleb - can you see what they are browsing on their phone if they are on an incognito tab? Asking for a friend. 

Anonymous 09 November 18 14:24

I don’t see the problem with what the IM lawyer did. He saw something amusing, filmed it. Who wouldn’t? Pinged it on to his mates. Not his fault it spiralled up the ladder at HL. 

Very unfortunate for the partner though. Doesn’t deserve more than a slap on the wrist.

IT pleb 09 November 18 14:49

"Suddenly concerned" - Tell your friend, yes.  Best ask your 'friend' to change the name of their phone to whomever you reckon might beat you to promotion.   Or the head of IT. 

Holiday Banta, Esq. 09 November 18 15:26

My firm sadly filters "suspicious websites", and doesn't allow me to browse such delights. :(

Low tech porn watching 09 November 18 16:23

What possessed him to watch porn on his PC in his office?  Surely that’s what those big screens in meeting rooms are for....

Ffs 09 November 18 16:29

It doesn't really matter that he was watching pron (assuming he wasn't on the clock or in a common area/able to be overheard).  The fact that he used a computer screen which could be easily seen from nearby offices, however, shows a somewhat concerning level of stupid... 

Anonymous 09 November 18 18:41

@Ladylawyer - There is no suggestion that he was watching something illegal. This just shows how easily false accusations can be made.

Remember, not all pornography is illegal and not everything to do with sex (even where a partner is involved) is harassment or misogyny.

What is inappropriate behaviour is suggesting that someone be fired based on a claim which you have exaggerated.



Anonymous 09 November 18 18:47

@ct12 - if you decide to make it into a movie, I can think of someone with experience of filming that type of thing.

Lydia 09 November 18 18:59

It is not against the law to view porn. Indeed some of us may well have to view it for work purposes. I am not joking either.


If IM lawyers have nothing better to do that snoop on other lawyers that probably says more about them than HL partners who may well be representing a porn publisher and having to check the mateiral - yes someone has to do that onerous task. Mind you if he had his trousers down at the same time imight be quite hard to bring that into the category of work unless he has been asked to assess how aroused the porn makes the viewer I suppose.

Anonymous 09 November 18 19:21

@Really? - Its not so much that people are condoning the partner (although do remember he thought he was acting in private), I think its just that a lot of people find what the person who filmed it and then used the