No elevated standard of proof in integrity cases, High Court finds in SDT sanction appeal

A partner’s appeal against his year-long suspension from practice has been dismissed by the High Court, after the judge ruled that failure to act with integrity did not require an elevated standard of proof.

Scott Halborg, a partner at Deals and Disputes Solicitors LLP, appealed the decision and sanction of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which suspended him from practice as a solicitor for 12 months.

The SDT heard that Halborg submitted proceedings and/or applications which were found to be totally without merit and/or an abuse or process, was subject to civil restraint orders and a general restraint order, and behaved in a manner which caused the court to express concern about his conduct. Halborg admitted the allegations against him but denied a lack of integrity which the SDT found proved. He appealed on a number of grounds.

In Scott Halborg v Solicitors Regulation Authority, Mrs Justice Lang said the suggestion that a failure to act with integrity connotes 'moral turpitude' and 'bad faith' and thus an elevated standard of proof is 'not supported by the authorities'. She noted that under the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, the allegations had to be proved to the civil standard of proof 'and the tribunal expressly applied this standard'.

She added: ‘In this case, the issue of integrity was in dispute, and the tribunal was entitled to have regard to all the evidence in determining it, and when determining sanction.’

Of Halborg’s eight grounds of appeal over the SDT’s findings and sanction, none succeeded and the appeal was dismissed. The interim condition appeal was also dismissed.