Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A solicitor who bombarded a female barrister with sexual messages has been struck off after repeatedly ignoring her pleas to stop, with his messages including “bend over”, “what are you wearing today”, and “where’s the big butt”.
A UK solicitor who branded himself a “top lawyer from Manchester” has been struck off after bombarding three women with unwanted, inappropriate messages.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that, over two years, Michael Peter Alexander repeatedly sent messages to the women, with the tribunal describing the communications as “sexually charged”.
The messages were sent across WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and LinkedIn, in what the tribunal heard was a persistent pattern of contact.
The first incident involved a female barrister, referred to throughout the proceedings as Person A, who had been instructed by the firm where Alexander worked.
Between April and May 2022, what began as a professional relationship – with the tribunal describing their exchanges as “occasional professional banter” – took a more personal and sexualised turn when the veteran solicitor began sending the barrister messages about her appearance and figure.
Specifically, the tribunal heard that Alexander sent Person A a series of WhatsApp messages containing increasingly explicit and sexualised remarks, including the likes of “where’s that big bad a--”, “is your thong on?”, “been w--king bout [sic] you”, and “need you to bend over”.
Throughout the exchanges, Person A repeatedly told Alexander that his messages were inappropriate and made clear that she wanted their communications to remain strictly professional.
Despite this, the messages continued, including late at night and into the early hours of the morning.
At one point, the barrister made clear that she did not view the exchanges as “banter”, telling Alexander that his messages were “sexually charged”, made her feel “very uncomfortable” and that she did not want to receive them.
As the conduct continued, the tribunal heard that the barrister ultimately took steps to avoid encountering Alexander, including avoiding court hearings where she knew he would be present, asking the firm not to send him to court, and eventually blocking him.
Person A told her senior clerk and Alexander’s law firm about his conduct, providing messages that showed he had continued despite her repeated requests to stop.
The tribunal heard that, ultimately, the barrister stopped accepting work from the firm because of the discomfort caused by Alexander’s behaviour.
The second situation involved Person B, whom Alexander contacted on Facebook in August 2023 after indicating that he was interested in employing her as a personal assistant.
The conversation quickly moved away from work to a more personal conversation, with Alexander asking about her weekend plans and whether she was free for a drink.
The tribunal heard how it then escalated to him asking Person B if she was naked in bed, messaged her that he would “keep chasing [her] but”, asked whether it was “pert or peachy”, and described himself as “a bit of a horny bastard”.
After sending her a series of increasingly inappropriate messages, Alexander would often sign off with sexually suggestive remarks, including “gonna enjoy chasing your pert butt you’re fab xxx,” “you sexy babe xxxx”, and “wish I was in bed with you xx”.
Person B repeatedly attempted to establish professional boundaries, telling him that she was in a relationship, was busy, and wanted their communications to remain professional, to which he told her she is a “cheeky b---h”.
Despite this, Alexander continued to send increasingly explicit and inappropriate messages, ultimately prompting Person B to tell him that she no longer wished to work for him.
But even that did not deter Alexander. Within a minute, he sent another explicit message and told her, “but I wanted you to suck my c--k”, prompting Person B to block him on WhatsApp, after which he responded with the message, “I’m the best xx.”
Following this, Alexander continued trying to contact Person B by calling her and leaving messages.
The tribunal heard that, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop, he persisted until she sent a final message making clear that she was “done” and that he needed to leave her alone, after which his messages became “threatening and insulting”.
During the investigation into his conduct, Alexander told the Solicitors Regulation Authority that Person B’s statement was “full of lies, inconsistencies, discrepancies and downright slander”.
The final incident heard by the tribunal involved Person C, whom Alexander contacted unexpectedly via LinkedIn despite, as the tribunal heard, “she did not know” him, initially asking whether she was free for lunch before going on to ask what she was doing that evening.
Despite Person C giving blunt responses and making little effort to engage, the tribunal heard that Alexander continued to message her, calling her “feisty” and persisting despite her lack of interest, until she eventually blocked him several days later.
In mitigation, Alexander offered his “unreserved apology” to the women, recognised that his conduct undermined public trust and said he was ashamed to have acted as he did.
Although the tribunal acknowledged Alexander’s admissions and apology, it remained deeply concerned by his repeated failure to stop the behaviour.
“The tribunal found his inability or unwillingness to desist from inappropriate communications to be extremely concerning,” the tribunal said.
The SDT ruled that the only appropriate sanction was to strike Alexander off the roll, bringing his career as a solicitor to an end, and ordered him to pay £75,000 (equivalent to $143,000) in costs, reduced from £100,000 to reflect his financial means and inability to continue practising.
