Andrew Harris exposed himself on camera during a training session—banned from holding legal roles
A former law firm team leader has been banned from the legal profession after indecently exposing himself during an online training session, shocking colleagues and external counsel.
Andrew Christian Harris, who was not a qualified solicitor, committed the outrageous act in August 2022 while employed at Slater and Gordon. During the virtual training, Harris appeared on camera and exposed his genitals to stunned colleagues and external legal counsel.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) launched an immediate investigation after receiving a report from the law firm. The regulator’s published findings offer few details about the incident itself, and Harris provided no public explanation or mitigation for his behaviour.
At the time of the incident, Harris held the position of team leader within Slater and Gordon’s fast-track personal injury department, having joined the firm in November 2020. His employment was terminated shortly after the exposure incident, following the firm’s swift report to the SRA.
Now, nearly three years later, Harris has been officially disqualified under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The disqualification prohibits him from taking any managerial position in regulated law firms, including head of legal practice or head of finance and administration. He is also barred from any employment role within an SRA-regulated legal practice.
The incident, though brief, has permanently derailed Harris’s legal career. The SRA issued the disqualification without providing any mitigating factors, strongly suggesting that Harris offered no defence or explanation for his indecent act during the regulatory process.
In addition to the disqualification, Harris has been ordered to pay £600 in costs to the SRA.
Slater and Gordon released a brief statement following the SRA’s ruling, distancing the firm from Harris’s conduct. A spokesperson said: “Following an incident involving Mr Harris in 2022, Slater and Gordon reported his conduct to the SRA and terminated his employment. The SRA has now concluded its own investigation.”
The bizarre nature of the misconduct has stunned observers in the legal profession. While the SRA frequently deals with financial misconduct, dishonesty, or negligence among lawyers, cases involving indecent exposure during professional video calls are rare and deeply alarming.
Legal experts have noted the increasing prevalence of inappropriate behaviour during virtual meetings, particularly as remote work became widespread during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. However, few incidents rise to the level of deliberate indecent exposure during a work training attended by both internal staff and external legal professionals.
Employment lawyers have stressed that all firms must enforce clear professional standards during virtual sessions. “Even in remote settings, employees are still representing their employer and are subject to professional conduct standards,” one expert commented. “This case serves as a stark warning that misconduct committed during online work events will carry the same severe consequences as in-person breaches.”
The SRA’s tough stance on Harris’s conduct reinforces its broader message about zero tolerance for behaviour that brings the legal profession into disrepute. While Harris was not a solicitor, his management position within an SRA-regulated firm made him subject to the same professional standards expected of solicitors.
With his legal career now in ruins, Harris joins a growing list of individuals who have faced permanent professional consequences for misconduct committed during the remote working era.
