Alexander Gallagher was struck off for dishonest attendance notes
A solicitor has been struck off the Roll after a tribunal found that he deliberately fabricated details in a court attendance note to conceal his late arrival at a hearing.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that Alexander David Edmund Hayes Gallagher be removed from the Roll of Solicitors following a hearing on 22 January 2026. The judgment was handed down on 4 February 2026.
Mr Gallagher, admitted to the profession in December 2016, had been instructed on a self-employed basis as an advocate by LPC Law. He did not attend the disciplinary hearing and was not represented. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence after finding he had been properly served with notice.
The allegation concerned a hearing at Wandsworth County Court on 7 August 2023. The matter was listed for 2 pm before District Judge Thomas. Mr. Gallagher arrived after the hearing had already commenced at 2.10 pm and concluded at approximately 2.25 pm in his absence. By the time he attended court, defence counsel had left.
The following day, he provided an attendance note to the firm and later sent an identical note to the client. In it, he stated that he had requested an adjournment due to a lack of instructions and that defence counsel had said she had not received certain documents.
The court order told a different story. The recital recorded that the judge had heard defence counsel in Mr Gallagher’s absence, had indicated judgment would be entered, and only later, after Mr Gallagher arrived and defence counsel had left, decided to adjourn the matter in the interests of fairness. There had been no application by Mr. Gallagher for an adjournment.
During subsequent communications with the firm and with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Mr. Gallagher accepted that the attendance note was incorrect. He admitted that he had been late for the hearing and that he had “made up” the attendance note.
Applying the test for dishonesty set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Tribunal found that Mr Gallagher knew the statements in the note were untrue at the time he wrote them. It concluded that ordinary and decent people would regard the deliberate fabrication of a court attendance note as dishonest.
The Tribunal held that his conduct breached Principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct. It found that he had acted dishonestly, lacked integrity, and failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal determined that strike-off was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. Mr. Gallagher was also ordered to pay costs of £9,419.