SDT: Approach to litigation was combative and attritional
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has rejected an argument from a solicitor made subject to a general civil restraint order (GCRO) that the “underlying motivation” for his misconduct was “noble”.
Suspending Scott Halborg from practice for 12 months, the SDT said his overall approach to litigation “was not conciliatory or proportionate, but combative and attritional”.
It went on: “It was marked by repeated unmeritorious applications and procedural tactics that were designed to, and did, frustrate the efficient progression of the litigation. [His] conduct not only fell short of the standards required of a solicitor, but also contravened the cooperative and restrained ethos embedded in the overriding objective.”
Mr Halborg admitted issuing proceedings found to be totally without merit, which “drew judicial criticism”, but denied acting with a lack of integrity.
The solicitor, who had been made subject to two limited civil restraint orders as well as the GCRO, said he had suffered “significant financial and reputational consequences”, including the imposition of indemnity costs orders worth over £1m.
Mr Halborg, 51, who qualified 1998, was the compliance officer and majority shareholder of Deals and Disputes Solicitors in Leicester.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said that, between January 2021 and November 2023, he engaged in “persistent, abusive litigation conduct”, resulting in the imposition of the GCRO in September 2021.
The SRA described this as “exceptionally rare” for a solicitor, establishing “both the gravity and persistence” of the misconduct.
It said that, although Mr Halborg claimed that he presented himself as a private litigant, he repeatedly signed pleadings and statements of truth in his capacity as a solicitor and partner.
Two firms of solicitors in separate pieces of litigation complained about Mr Halborg to the SRA, and further concerns were raised in May 2022 about another case characterised by “repeated appeals and procedural delay”.
Finding that he had acted with a lack of integrity, the SDT said the “repeated and persistent nature” of Mr Halborg’s misconduct “demonstrated a disregard for the procedural rules and for the authority of the court” and undermined the efficient administration of justice.
His status as a solicitor – and therefore as an officer of the court – was not suspended by the private nature of the proceedings, it said, nor by the fact that he had instructed counsel to advise at various junctures.
The fact he was the subject of “multiple restraint orders by different judges” was a reflection of the “seriousness and persistence” of his misconduct. It rejected his contention that the “underlying motivation for his conduct was noble”.
In mitigation Mr Halborg, who was represented by a KC, “emphasised that the proceedings spanned the Covid-19 pandemic, during which court listings were disrupted and appeals were delayed”.
However, the SDT said the fact that “litigation occurred during a period of exceptional pressure on the courts” during the pandemic “amplified” the seriousness of his misconduct.
“Against that backdrop, the respondent’s repeated pursuit of unmeritorious applications and procedural manoeuvring imposed an avoidable burden on an already strained system”.
The tribunal said Mr Halborg’s professional experience was a “significant aggravating factor”, having “two decades of post-qualification experience” and holding the roles of COLP and COFA.
Though he ultimately ceased to contest the majority of the SRA’s allegations against him, these admissions were made “at a very late stage in the proceedings, and against a backdrop of sustained resistance to the allegations and criticism of judicial findings”.
The SDT rejected Mr Halborg’s arguments that compliance with the civil restraint orders was a mitigating factor.
“Compliance with legal obligations – particularly court orders – is the minimum expected of solicitors, and in this instance, compliance did not, in itself, constitute evidence of insight or remorse.”
The solicitor was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay costs of £30,630.
Leave a Comment