An Ontario lawyer who repeatedly lied to clients about the status of their cases and created fictitious documents had his licence revoked by the Law Society Tribunal after it rejected arguments that his misconduct was caused by mental health issues.
The tribunal found S.G. engaged in professional misconduct that included fabricating settlement agreements, lying about filing documents with the court, and misleading clients about the status of their cases over a six-year period from 2013 to 2019.
“There is no doubt that the misconduct in which Mr. G. engaged is very serious,” the tribunal noted in its decision.
Extensive pattern of deception
The tribunal heard that S.G. admitted to a range of dishonest conduct affecting multiple clients, including:
- Lying about having filed originating documents with courts
- Claiming to have secured settlements that didn’t exist
- Failing to advise when cases had been dismissed for delay
- Creating and presenting fictitious documents
- Falsely advising clients he was attending court
- Withdrawing funds from trust without delivering accounts
- Lying about transferring funds to clients
- Making unauthorized use of settlement funds
In one case involving a pension and disability benefit matter that was dismissed for delay in 2013, S.G. didn’t tell his clients about the dismissal. Instead, he “repeatedly promised imminent payment of a fictitious $350,000 settlement” and exchanged 1,808 text messages with the client from 2017 to 2019 to support his misrepresentations.
For another client, S.G. falsely claimed that an insurer had offered $550,000 to settle a case when the actual offer was $60,000. He also created fictitious settlement documents for purported settlements of $300,000 and $675,000 with other companies.
Mental health defence rejected
S.G.’s counsel argued for a one-year suspension rather than revocation, submitting that his client’s mental health problems should mitigate the penalty.
The lawyer claimed his misconduct could be explained by depression and alcohol use disorder, arguing that he was a “people pleaser” who “did not maintain boundaries, became over-involved with clients, and took on more work for them than he should have done.”
A psychiatrist testified on S.G.’s behalf, diagnosing him with major depressive disorder and “alcohol use disorder, severe, in sustained remission.”
However, the tribunal concluded it was “unable to find mental health to be an extenuating factor for the proven misconduct,” noting that the misconduct began before there was evidence of significant mental health or substance abuse issues.
“We are not satisfied that Mr. G.’s mental health provides any material explanation for his misconduct,” the tribunal wrote.
The panel acknowledged that S.G.’s alcohol use had “became problematic by 2018” and that he experienced a mental health crisis in May 2019 that led him to cease practising. But it found the extensive misconduct dating back to 2013 couldn’t be explained by these later health issues.
Maintaining public confidence
In determining the appropriate penalty, the tribunal emphasized that “maintaining public confidence in the legal profession weighs most heavily.”
“Maintaining public confidence requires that extensive and lengthy lying to clients about the lawyer’s work be treated most seriously. Such misconduct is utterly incompatible with the lawyer-client relationship and is highly corrosive of public confidence,” the decision stated.
The tribunal rejected arguments that the misconduct was less serious because it didn’t involve financial gain for S.G.
“While Mr. G.’s misrepresentations were not for the purpose of obtaining any benefits but rather to placate clients… Mr. G. avoided or delayed claims and complaints that could have been made had he not misled his clients,” the tribunal noted.
Significant client harm
The decision highlighted the substantial harm suffered by clients who were led to believe they would receive large settlements.
“Clients suffered by being strung along and avoided by Mr. G. They were deprived of the ability to make choices in their lives based on correct information,” the tribunal wrote.
It noted that clients likely made financial decisions based on his misrepresentations about their prospects for recovery, causing “anxiety, frustration and inconvenience.”
License revocation imposed
While S.G. had not practised law for four and a half years since entering an undertaking not to practise in September 2019, the tribunal determined that his misconduct warranted the most serious penalty available.
“As Mr. G.’s conduct evidences a lack of integrity over a lengthy period of time, we are not confident that Mr. G. can safely return to practice even with restrictions on his licence as proposed,” the tribunal wrote.
The tribunal revoked his licence to practise law and ordered him to pay costs of $24,185.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Grillone, 2025 ONLSTH 48 (CanLII).
