Lewis Duncan

Introduction

Lewis Duncan is a former IT service desk analyst who worked for the law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie and was based at the firm’s Glasgow office. In February 2024, an inventory check at the Glasgow office discovered that several laptops were missing from an IT storeroom. Using security software that had been installed on the machines, the firm’s IT staff linked one of the missing laptops to Duncan’s home address, confirmed that it was connected to his wi-fi network, and remotely locked the machine so that it could no longer be used. After a disciplinary hearing, Ashurst deemed Duncan guilty of serious misconduct and dismissed him, reporting his conduct to the SRA. He has since been made subject to a s.43 order, which bars non-solicitors from the legal profession by preventing regulated people and entities from employing them. Duncan denies acting dishonestly and says he was treated unfairly.

Background Information

Duncan worked as an IT service desk analyst at Ashurst Perkins Coie and was based in the firm’s Glasgow office. When the Glasgow office checked its inventory in February 2024, it discovered several laptops were missing from an IT storeroom. Security software had been installed on the machines which was designed to remain even if they were wiped for re-use, meaning the firm retained the ability to trace the devices after they left its premises.

The record does not state exactly how many laptops were missing, how long they had been gone before the check took place, or who carried out the investigation that followed. It also does not mention any criminal charge arising from the incident, and it does not say whether the police were involved at any point.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The incident that ended Duncan’s employment began with the February 2024 inventory check. Ashurst’s IT staff linked the errant laptop to the home address of one of their colleagues, Lewis Duncan. After confirming that the computer was hooked into his wi-fi network and was using an IP address connected to him, the team remotely locked the missing laptop and rendered it unusable.

The security software was designed so that the next time Duncan turned the machine on, he would see a message asking the ‘finder’ to call the firm’s IT helpdesk. Ashurst said it did not receive any such calls. After holding a disciplinary hearing, the firm deemed him guilty of serious misconduct and fired him, and it reported his conduct to the SRA.

The record does not give the date of the disciplinary hearing or of the dismissal, and it does not describe what was said at the hearing.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The case was reported by RollOnFriday in September 2026 under the headline “Ban for Ashurst Perkins Coie IT guy found with missing laptop”, bringing attention to the fact that an IT employee rather than a solicitor had been made subject to professional regulation. Duncan was reported as saying he had been treated unfairly.

Among the anonymous readers commenting beneath the article, reaction was sceptical of the firm’s approach. One commenter questioned why, so far as the published reports showed, no one had asked Duncan in person to return the laptop, while others suggested that a warning would have been a sufficient response and that taking work equipment home was not unusual for IT workers. These observations are the commenters’ own and the article does not establish them as fact.

The direct consequences for Duncan were the loss of his job, the report of his conduct to the SRA, and the s.43 order that followed.

Current Status

Duncan now works in the transport sector. He remains subject to the s.43 order, the effect of which is to bar non-solicitors from the legal profession by preventing regulated people and entities from employing him. He continues to dispute the finding that he acted dishonestly. The record does not state whether he has appealed the s.43 order or taken any further action against Ashurst, and it does not say whether the police were ever involved in the matter; no criminal charge is mentioned in the record.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The affair cost Duncan his job at Ashurst and, through the s.43 order, his ability to be employed by regulated legal businesses, and he has since moved into the transport sector. He maintains that the outcome was unjust. “I accept that I took company laptops home without express permission to complete work on them, and I recognise that I should not have done so”, he said. “However, I strongly dispute the finding that I acted dishonestly or stole any company property. Everything I took home for work was returned once I had finished with it”, he said.

He also pointed to what he regarded as a gap in the ruling against him: the firm’s records showed that the missing laptop later moved from Duncan’s home to another address, which he said cast doubt on the decision, as “the decision does not explain how the laptop was subsequently recorded at another address”. The record does not state what became of the laptop after that point, or how the firm accounted for the movement in its records.

Beyond his move to the transport sector, the record gives no further information about Duncan’s circumstances since the ban was imposed.

Sources

• RollOnFriday, “Ban for Ashurst Perkins Coie IT guy found with missing laptop”, September 4, 2026. source