Adding insult to injury at tax time
Murray is feeling 'taxed' that the Canada Revenue Agency doesn't provide tax return software for us to use each year, fo...
After a formal complaint was lodged against Glenn Headley on April 29, 2025, the Saskatoon lawyer was disbarred on Dec. 31 of last year.
The matter was publicly shared last week on the Law Society of Saskatchewan’s website.
Read more:
- Fort McMurray men arrested after allegedly kidnapping man at gunpoint in Yorkton: RCMP
- Dozens of weapons, machetes, knives, seized at RUH in past three months: NDP
- Mounties handed out hundreds of tickets across Saskatchewan during enforcement blitz
Headley was found to have failed to provide a competent, timely, conscientious, diligent and efficient quality of service for his clients; failed to act honestly towards his clients by intentionally misleading them in relation to the status of their legal matters; and fabricated court documents in relation to client matters.
Headley also failed to comply with client identification and verification requirements and source of funds requirements with multiple clients, as required by the rules of the Law Society of Saskatchewan.
According to the agreed statement of facts summarized in the discipline decision, Headley had been retained in foreclosure proceedings. In September 2021, Headley began the proceedings for two clients who were private lenders. Headley had previously drafted mortgages for these clients.
No further work was done, but Headley told the clients he had prepared and issued a claim, which was not true. Two years after he was engaged, in August 2025, the clients requested an update from Headley, who told them he had “done everything he could but was awaiting decisions from the court.
“This was not true,” the discipline decision read.
Headley continued to obscure the lack of progress on the case for two years, lying to his clients by blaming the court for the delay, claiming he would be “blacklisted” by judges if he did anything further in the meantime.
The lawyer also created multiple court documents in Sept. 2023 with fake court file numbers and clerk’s endorsements and provided these to the clients. Headley then continued to deceive his clients with further fake updates and excuses.
Headley eventually confessed to his clients in writing in Feb. 2024, admitting he had missed deadlines to file documents after serving the initial court documents in the case. He apologized for not being truthful and told the clients he had “hoped the properties would be sold or that the borrowers would pass away,” according to the online decision.
“I am writing to advise and admit that your suspicions are correct,” Headley’s admission to his clients read.
“While the initial court documents were served on each of the borrowers, I was not able to file the documents to meet the time deadlines prescribed by the rules. I should have advised you at the time and, in retrospect, it is, by far, the greatest error I have ever made. I have the utmost regret in that regard and sincerely apologize although I realize such an apology is of no value to you at this point,” Headley wrote.
“I realize I have had countless opportunities to be truthful to you. I have no acceptable excuse for not doing so.”
The clients filed a complaint with the Law Society of Saskatchewan and Headley was audited, but was not forthright at first about the modification of documents. Once confronted with evidence of this, Headley did admit to the wrongdoing and said he did not self-report his own misconduct because “he hoped clients would move on or that someone else would fix it by initiating new proceedings.”
The audit uncovered that Headley had not complied with client identification and verification requirements regarding transactions with mutual clients.
Headley’s conduct was found to be unbecoming by the hearing committee on his matter. Aggravating factors of his conduct included the long period of time over which Headley misled his clients without telling them the truth, his deflection of blame to further deceive his clients, his planned and deliberate work to support his deception and fabricating court documents, which undermines public confidence and harms the administration of justice.
The lawyer provided factors that contributed to his conduct, including a decrease in business during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated by the departure of a long-time legal assistant. The loss of this employee meant Headley took on this case in order to not lose a client, despite his lack of experience and comfort in practising foreclosure matters.
Headley was also dealing with significant health concerns around this time.
“It is unclear when these occurred in relation to his actions on these matters and he did not claim that this was a reason for his actions,” the decision read.
Headley consented to his disbarment.
How often are lawyers disbarred?
Jody Martin, director of regulation with the Law Society of Saskatchewan, explained in a written statement that the threshold for disbarment in Canada is met when the misconduct of a lawyer is so serious that “no sanction short of removal of their ability to practice law can adequately protect the public or maintain the honour and integrity of the legal profession.”
The Law Society of Saskatchewan is the body that regulates the practice of law in the public interest for the province. Regulatory and ethical requirements, and standards for conduct, are set out by The Law Society of Saskatchewan Rules and Codes of Professional Conduct. Lawyers are strictly held to account by this framework to ensure practitioners fulfill the core duties of integrity, competency and loyalty.
The Law Society’s disciplinary process holds lawyers accountable for “conduct unbecoming,” which is defined in The Legal Profession Act, 1990, as any act or conduct, disgraceful or dishonourable that is harmful to the best interests of the public or members of the Law Society or tends to cause harm to the standing of the legal profession.
Disbarment, Martin said, is the most severe disciplinary outcome in the legal profession and taken very seriously and would typically be reserved for misconduct that demonstrates a “fundamental breach of a lawyer’s duties to the public, the court and the profession.”
She explained that it is not the most common outcome in discipline-related hearings.
In Saskatchewan, between Jan. 1, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2025, 24 discipline decisions have been issued, with only three disbarments and one resignation in the face of discipline — equivalent to disbarment, Martin said — in those decisions.
“It is not the most common outcome in discipline related hearings,” Martin said.
In decisions like Headley’s, the lawyer’s conduct must be found to be of such an egregious nature it either demonstrates that the lawyer is no longer fit to practise law or is ungovernable. Disbarment is considered when it is found that a lawyer’s misconduct is intentional, dishonest or shows a sustained pattern of behaviour incompatible with the core values of the profession — in situations where a lawyer might misuse client funds, commit fraud, or be criminally convicted, for example.
A hearing committee considers these factors proportionally, as well as how harmful this behaviour was to the public, whether the conduct of the lawyer could be remedied and whether the misconduct shows an unwillingness to adhere to professional standards. The committee also reviews aggravating or mitigating factors and prior discipline history.
Disciplinary outcomes are meant to protect the public, maintain confidence in the administration of justice and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.
Read more:
