Employee at Irwin Mitchell telling Lovell's HR about someone watching porn

From today's ROF news.

Not sure what solicitors' rules of conduct say, but the Bar Council guidance says:

"3. The categories of conduct that we believe barristers should report can be separated into two discrete areas:

• What is in the public interest to be reported
• What is in the best interests of the reputation of the profession to be reported

4. In both of these categories the misconduct, incapacity or offence to be reported must be serious and of the sort which, if proved, would suggest to the public that the individual ought not to continue to be permitted to practise as a barrister offering advice to the public and might justify a sentence of disbarment or suspension from practise from a Disciplinary Tribunal. Barristers are not expected to report every minor offence or breach of the Code."

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1555751/30_-_the_reporting_of_professional_misconduct_of_barristers_by_members_of_the_bar.docx

Not all cases of inappropriate watching of porn would fall into that serious category.

I don't think I would have gone to HR. In fact, I doubt I would have done anything at all. I might have had a word with someone at Lovells and asked them to have a quiet word with the relevant person. 

Unless the guy who filmed it had some kind of grudge against porn man, what kind of sad little bitch do you have to be to not only film it but dob him in. 

i've long held a vendetta against HL and those who work there 

so whilst i tend to agree heff's first post. my main reaction was

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The IM lawyer should have sent the Partner a direct email asking him to move over slightly as he was blocking the view.

 

I'm hoping it was something very niche

Surely this behaviour on the part if the irwin mitchell lawyer involves:

 

1) potentially a degree of voyeurism (and beyond a certain point isnt this unlawful?) and/ or  

2) actively filming pornography and / or

3) engaging in the unsolicited distribution of pornography and/or

4) GDPR!!!!

Someone should tell the law society.

"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."

So shocked that it misted up his binoculars and he could no longer fill in the log he had been maintaining over the 15 prior years of careful study.

There are very many people who consider it to be utterly demeaning

to women, to sit there watching porn, in full view of some snowflake

 woman across the street who thought she was in a safe place 

What's the distance between the windows? Even if it's a narrow street it's hard to see how this could really shock anyone, separated as they were by several panes of glass and a road. 

 

Do you think the IM lawyer filmed and emailed the video of someone watching this porn on an Irwin Mitchell issued mobile phone using and Irwin Mitchell email address? 

 

Presumably the images in the email would have to have recorded the explicit material to be of an value to the complaint?

where does it say the IM lawyer told HL's HR? Sounds to me that the IM lawyer sent it to his mates at HL for a laugh and then they (or someone they sent it to) reported it to HL's HR.

Loopy-lou: yes, that's right, either I misread it or ROF has now slightly changed the text to make that clear

funny because I could have sworn originally it said the IM person had told Lovells HR

The IM lawyer should have sent the Partner a direct email asking him to move over slightly as he was blocking the view.

hehe! 

The HL lawyer watching it at work was a bit silly, it has to be said. 

I just pray it’s someone I know and don’t like who moved there, heh.  But no chance, he’s far too po faces for pron. 

sadface.

pathos.