A solicitor has been suspended from practice after bringing so many failed court applications that he had to be prevented from litigating. Scott Halborg’s few successes were so insignificant they were compared to the lights working on the Titanic, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard.
Halborg, a partner at Leicester firm Deals & Disputes Solicitors LLP, was alleged to have failed to conduct litigation in accordance with his duties as an officer of the court by submitting multiple applications which were found to be totally without merit and which led to him being made subject to two limited civil restraint orders and a general civil restraint order.
He was also alleged to have behaved in a manner which caused judges to express concern about his conduct.
At a hearing on Tuesday, the SDT was told Halborg admitted he had breached Principles 1 and 2 and paragraphs 2.4 and 2.6 of the Code of Conduct. He denied he had breached Principle 5 (lack of integrity).
The tribunal heard Halborg had begun litigation against his parents which then led to a second claim against the representatives of the defendants in a previous claim. The court heard a claim against the defendant solicitor was ’withdrawn’ (settled) and the claim against the barrister defendant dismissed.
Thomas Walker, for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said ‘concerns were expressed by several judges’ over the ‘unusual number and scale of applications’ made by Halborg. These led to a limited civil restraint order ‘which was deemed insufficient’. A general restraint order was later imposed.
Read more
He added: ‘A restraint order, even limited, is not a usual thing or a normal thing to be imposed in litigation. We would say it is unusual to be made against a solicitor, even more unusual for a general civil restraint order to be imposed. We say it is remarkable this order was made against a solicitor.’
The SRA said Halborg was the claimant in the proceedings but was not acting as litigant in person in the litigation.
Walker said Halborg had ‘virtually no victories on the way to defeat and if there were victories in so far as a handful of applications were successful, they were in relation to costs issues. There is no dispute the respondent is a highly intelligent individual. There is no dispute there are elements of the litigation where his conduct was not criticised but to dwell on these points would be akin to talking about, for example, the lights working on the Titanic. Elements of what was going on do not equate to overwhelmingly negative conduct.’
Dermot Keating KC, for Halborg, said his client ‘does accept, stepping back and looking at the overall picture, his conduct did fall short of compliance of the overall objective. There was judicial dissatisfaction expressed and he accepts that.’
Keating added: ‘This is someone who got embroiled in litigation with his family and he regrets that deeply for many reasons.’
The three-person panel found Halborg in breach of principles 1, 2 and 5 and paragraphs 2.4 and 2.6 of the code of conduct. He previously had an ‘unblemished record’.
Finding all breaches proved, the SDT ordered Halborg be suspended from practice for 12 months and that he pay £30,630 costs.
