Social media: Solicitor contacted women via Facebook and LinkedIn
A veteran male solicitor who sent a stream of “sexually charged” messages to a female barrister his firm was instructing, even after she told him to stop, has been struck off.
Michael Peter Alexander sent even more explicit messages to a second woman he found on Facebook, a PA he said he was looking to employ, and was gearing up to do the same via LinkedIn to a third before she blocked him.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) rejected his counsel’s submission that a period of suspension would suffice, saying the public “would consider it unacceptable for a solicitor who had behaved as Mr Alexander had behaved to be permitted to continue to practise”.
He was fully aware of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) investigation into his conduct towards Person A when he began communicating with Person B, and similarly that he had been referred to the SDT over Person A and was under investigation over Person B when he approached Person C.
“The tribunal found his inability or unwillingness to desist from inappropriate communications to be extremely concerning…
“The tribunal noted the submission that there had been no further incidents but did not accept that Mr Alexander presented no future risk of similar misconduct.”
It went on: “Mr Alexander was an experienced solicitor who should have understood the need to maintain professional boundaries and to desist immediately when asked to do so.
“The absence of physical sexual misconduct meant that the misconduct did not become more serious still; it did not render the proven conduct anything other than very serious.”
Mr Alexander, 63, qualified in 1988. His contact with the barrister, Person A, came while he worked at Blackburn firm Harwood Solicitors, and with the other two women while was a self-employed consultant to six other firms.
His communications with Person A began in a work-related context and initially included occasional professional “banter”.
But he then began sending personal and sexualised messages, commenting on Person A’s appearance and figure, asked what she was wearing, and sent other sexually charged messages about her “big ass”.
Person A repeatedly told him that the messages were inappropriate, asked him to keep communications professional, and asked him to stop. Mr Alexander did not, messaging late at night and early in the morning.
The SDT recorded: “Person A became sufficiently uncomfortable that she avoided attending court where she knew he would be present, asked the firm not to send him to court on a case in which she was instructed, and ultimately blocked him.
“Person A informed her senior clerk and the firm, provided messages as evidence that Mr Alexander had ignored her requests to stop, and decided she would no longer accept work from the firm because of the discomfort caused by Mr Alexander’s conduct.”
Mr Alexander first contacted Person B via Facebook. She “accepted his message and friendship request because she considered that a professional connection with a lawyer might be useful and because he had raised the possibility of temporary PA work”.
But over the space of nine days, his messages “quickly made the conversation personal”. He asked about her weekend plans, when she was free for a drink, and said he wanted to take her to a restaurant despite her saying she lived with someone.
He asked whether she was naked in bed, said he would “keep chasing [her] butt”, asked whether it was “pert or peachy,” described himself as “a bit of a horny bastard,” and ended messages with, “gonna enjoy chasing your pert butt you’re fab xxx,” “you sexy babe xxxx” and “wish I was in bed with you xx”.
He left voicemail messages. In one, he said he hoped their communications were “the start of something quite exciting” and that he would “enjoy chasing [her] butt”. In the second, he said he looked forward to Person B being his PA and added: “Will you let me squeeze your arse while you are my PA, and let me flirt with you, that’ll be fun.”
The messages became even more explicit and Person B eventually told him that she no longer wished to work for him.
He ignored requests to stop until she sent a message stating that it was her boyfriend and that he needed to leave her alone, after which Mr Alexander “became threatening and insulting”, the SRA said.
He contacted Person C on LinkedIn out of the blue, asking if she was free for lunch, then asking what she was doing that evening, describing her as feisty and asking her what her “fella” was like.
The SRA said his messages “could be seen as the precursor to what he hoped, or expected, would lead to further communications in the same vein” as with the other two women, but Person C shut them down before they got that far.
In mitigation, Mr 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.
The tribunal recorded the harm each woman had suffered, with the barrister saying she became hesitant before giving her number to work colleagues, did not actively use social media and suffered financially by stopping working for Harwood Solciitors.
Person B said she felt “shaken, disillusioned, and more guarded in professional settings, and stated that her trust in men in professional roles had diminished”. Person C found his persistence particularly distressing and deactivated her LinkedIn account entirely.
The SDT noted that Mr Alexander initially rejected the complaints made against him – even complaining to Person A’s chambers when she complained about him – and blamed the victims instead. But he admitted his misconduct before the tribunal.
It acknowledged that he had apologised, had no previous disciplinary findings in a long career and had provided professional references.
Mr Alexander was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £75,000, reduced from £100,000 to take into account his means and inability to continue to practise.