Michael Alexander
Introduction
Michael Alexander is a 63-year-old solicitor who was struck off and ordered to pay £75,000 in costs after bombarding three female legal workers with sexualised messages. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found his conduct — a months-long stream of WhatsApp and LinkedIn messages to a barrister, a barrister’s clerk and another legal professional — was sexually motivated, as he admitted on the first day of his hearing. Alexander had practised since 1988 and once ran his own firm employing 15 people; the tribunal concluded that his departure from the standards expected of a solicitor was so serious that striking him off was required to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.
Background Information
Alexander, 63, began practising as a solicitor in October 1988. He ran his own firm from 1993 to 2015, employing 15 people at its height, and was later employed by Harwood Solicitors from January 2020 to August 2022. RollOnFriday reported that at the relevant time he was with Russell & Russell. The conduct covered by the findings began with the April and May 2022 messages to Person A; a firm investigation and an SRA referral followed, and the approaches to Person B and Person C came while that scrutiny was under way. His solicitor told the hearing that he “would like to offer an unreserved apology to Person A, B and C for the distress he caused them” and that “He recognises that his conduct will undermine public trust in the solicitors’ profession and he is ashamed to have acted in such a way”.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings described here are a matter of tribunal record: Alexander admitted the allegations on the first day of his Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, which found his conduct was sexually motivated and struck him off the roll. These are regulatory findings, not criminal convictions: he was never criminally charged.
Between April and May 2022, Alexander sent Person A — a female barrister his firm instructed — WhatsApp messages he described as “banter” but which the tribunal found were sexually motivated. He asked her “Where’s that big bad ass?”; she told him to “stick to the rules please”. He asked if she had a thong on, what she was wearing, described her as “tops”, asked if she was in bed, if she was “commando”, and if she would “bend over”. He continued despite her repeated objections, some messages arriving late at night or in the early morning, and she became “sufficiently uncomfortable” and asked her firm not to send him to court on a case she was to appear in. RollOnFriday reported that he told the barrister he masturbated while thinking about her and “her posterior”; she left the matter and did not attend court. After a firm investigation and an SRA referral, he contacted Person B, a barrister’s clerk he found on LinkedIn: he suggested he could employ her as his PA, told her she could “trust him because he was a solicitor”, asked if she was “naked in bed”, said he was a “horny bastard”, called her a “cheeky bitch” and left voicemails when she told him to keep things professional. While under investigation, he contacted Person C on LinkedIn asking her to lunch; when she asked if he knew her, he replied “no but I am a top lawyer from Manchester”. The Independent reported that he also sent sexualised GIFs to a potential assistant and asked if she was “pert or peachy”, and that he messaged a heavily pregnant woman on LinkedIn asking if she was free for lunch — she suggested he use Match.com. Alexander admitted the allegations on the first day of the hearing; The Independent noted he “accepted that the messages were highly inappropriate and offensive but said that no sexual advances were made in person”.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The tribunal, chaired by Teresa Cullen, found the misconduct was “deliberate, repeated, and persistent” and sexually motivated, as Alexander had admitted. It ordered him struck off the roll and to pay £75,000 in costs, ruling that his “departure from the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor was so serious that the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession required that he be struck off the Roll”. The case was reported by RollOnFriday — which published its account on 10 July 2026 and had tracked the messaging in detail — and by The Independent on 6 August 2026, with the £75,000 costs order on top of the strike-off marking the financial as well as professional cost of the proceedings. The apology his solicitor offered on his behalf — to Person A, B and C, for the distress he caused them — stood alongside the tribunal’s finding that only removal from the roll met the seriousness of what he had done.
Current Status
Alexander, 63, is struck off the roll of solicitors and liable for £75,000 in tribunal costs. His admissions on the first day of the hearing resolved the factual basis of the case: the tribunal found the conduct sexually motivated, consistent with what he had admitted, and he did not dispute the allegations. The findings are regulatory, not criminal — he was never criminally charged — and the tribunal’s reasoning placed the decision on public-protection and public-confidence grounds rather than on any disputed account of the messages, which he accepted he sent. In mitigation framing reported by The Independent, he accepted the messages were highly inappropriate and offensive but said no sexual advances were made in person.
Impact on Their Career/Life
A career of more than three decades — from admission in October 1988, through fifteen years running his own firm with 15 staff, to employment at Harwood Solicitors and then Russell & Russell — ended with removal from the roll and a £75,000 costs liability. The tribunal’s language, describing his departure from the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor as so serious that striking off was required, closes the door on practise in the profession he entered in 1988. The pattern the tribunal found — persistence after objections, approach to a second woman while under investigation, and a third while that investigation continued — was central to its conclusion that his conduct was deliberate, repeated and persistent, and it is that finding, on admissions he made, that defines how his career ends.