Compliance chief suspended for a year after relentless, meritless litigation provoked judicial alarm
Scott Halborg, a solicitor of over 20 years’ experience, has been suspended from legal practice for a year after a Tribunal ruled that his relentless and meritless litigation campaign amounted to serious professional misconduct and a lack of integrity.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) launched its investigation after receiving complaints from two separate law firms who had been embroiled in litigation with Halborg. His actions led to a Limited Civil Restraint Order being imposed on 6 July 2021, which was later escalated to a General Civil Restraint Order on 14 September 2021. Further complaints were raised in May 2022 due to his continued pattern of excessive appeals and procedural obstruction.
The SRA alleged — and Halborg admitted — that he had filed proceedings and applications that were found to be totally without merit. His conduct throughout the litigation process had attracted repeated judicial criticism. However, Halborg denied acting without integrity.
Embed from Getty ImagesDespite his denials, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Halborg’s behaviour did, in fact, fall far short of the standards expected of the profession. It ruled that he had engaged in sustained, improper litigation, especially concerning a dispute within his own family. The Tribunal described his actions as “procedural attrition”, marked by a series of meritless applications intended to delay proceedings and wear down opponents.
Importantly, Halborg was not just any solicitor. He held senior regulatory positions in his firm, acting as both the Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) and Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA). The Tribunal noted that these roles carried heightened responsibilities, especially during a period when the courts were already under immense pressure due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It found that Halborg’s actions not only undermined the legal process but also placed additional and unnecessary burdens on an already stretched court system. His late admission of fault did little to demonstrate genuine insight or remorse, and the Tribunal concluded that his understanding of the seriousness of his misconduct was severely lacking.
In assessing the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal rejected Halborg’s request for a mere reprimand or financial penalty. It determined that only a fixed-term suspension could properly reflect the severity of his misconduct and help maintain public confidence in the legal profession.
Judges had previously remarked on the unusual number and volume of appeals submitted by Halborg — including one group involving 19 separate appeals. These were all ultimately deemed groundless, with judicial commentary indicating alarm at the sheer scale of his attempts to overwhelm the court system.
The Tribunal found his level of culpability to be high. The damage caused by his actions, amplified by the pandemic’s impact on the judicial system, was deemed serious. His claim to integrity could not stand in the face of sustained, vexatious litigation that served no legitimate legal purpose.
Ultimately, the 12-month suspension was issued not only to penalise Halborg but also to deter others from similar misuse of legal proceedings. The Tribunal made clear that even seasoned professionals in senior roles would not be shielded from serious consequences if they abused the legal system