Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Disciplinary action was imposed on an HWLE partner who bombarded his builder with more than 100 discourteous and abusive text messages, including a threat that he was “going to bite you hard”.
A flurry of texts sent by partner Fabio Fior between July and August 2023 included claims his builder was “dodgy and useless”, that Fior had allegedly been short-changed, and threats of lodging a “massive counter-claim” that would be posted about on LinkedIn.
Fior, a partner in HWL Ebsworth’s commonwealth government group, accepted a reprimand and a $10,000 fine for breaching the Legal Profession (Solicitor) Conduct Rules and engaging in conduct that was likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
Senior members Robert Orr KC and Emma Morrison said the text messages were “insulting, harassing and threatening”.
“It makes no difference that the messages were sent in the ‘heat of the moment’: the impact on their recipients and the reputation of the legal profession is the same,” Orr and Morrison said.
“It is also relevant that, before sending the text messages, the respondent had sent remedial and contract default notices from his professional email account, so there could be no confusion that he was a lawyer.”
The builder was hired in September 2022 to carry out “extensive” work on Fior’s home and brought it to “practical completion” in June 2023.
In addition to emails that catalogued the alleged defects and requested a “substantial offer of compromise”, Fior sent the text messages, including one that read: “You tried to short change me; I’m going to bite you.”
A law firm engaged by the builder sent an offer of compromise and requested that all correspondence be sent to them alone. Responses from Fior were sent from his work email with his professional signature block.
Fior sent further text messages to the builder, including a threat to “expose you so everyone knows” about his company.
Apparently, having received no response from the first law firm, Fior also texted the builder that he was “coming after you personally”, that he would bankrupt the builder, and insisted there would be “no phoenix company arising from the ashes”.
Fior added that he would “post this defects list on my Instagram”, that the builder should offer $200,000, and told him to “run and hide”.
A second firm retained by the builder issued a cease and desist in mid-August to prevent any further direct communication.
In response, Fior insinuated to this firm that the builder engaged in criminal conduct and said he planned to print the firm’s email so he could use it as “TP”, which presumably meant toilet paper.
Orr and Morrison were satisfied that Fior knew the builder was represented and all correspondence was to be sent to the solicitors.
They added that Fior did not give notice of his intention to communicate directly with the builder, “and wait for a reasonable time to pass”.
Further, Orr and Morrison agreed that Fior could not have formed any reasonable belief that urgent circumstances existed to justify the direct contact, “nor that the substance of his communications would not be unfair to the builder”.
“Rather, it appears that the respondent’s emotional involvement in the building dispute severely compromised his objectivity and patience, leading to persistent attempts to resolve the matter directly with the builder and without regard to the appropriate process,” they said.
While noting Fior was not acting for his clients, and therefore not communicating in the course of being “engaged” in legal practice, Orr and Morrison were satisfied that the use of his work email and signature block meant there was a “sufficient ‘connection with the practice of law’”.
“The respondent is a property and construction lawyer with specialist experience in building disputes. He was also a partner at his firm, a role that carries significant standing and professional influence.
“In those circumstances, his decision to correspond with the builder ostensibly as a lawyer, combined with the threatening and intimidating tone and content of that correspondence, could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to use his professional status to apply pressure and leverage a swift resolution in his favour,” Orr and Morrison said.
Citation: Council of the Law Society of the ACT v LP 022025 (Fabio Fior) (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 34.
