Saskatchewan lawyers reprimanded over fee litigation and tribunal representation

Two Saskatchewan lawyers have received reprimands and orders to pay $11,250 each in regulatory costs after admitting professional misconduct involving fee-assessment litigation and separate client matters. The Law Society of Saskatchewan accepted a joint penalty proposal in Law Society of Saskatchewan v Mervin Clayton Phillips and Nathan Phillips, 2026 SKLSS 4, decided October 20, 2026.

The hearing committee found serious shortcomings in the lawyers’ conduct but concluded that reprimands fell within an acceptable range when repayment, the age of the conduct, resolution of the proceedings and remedial steps were considered. It warned both lawyers that similar future misconduct would call for a greater penalty, without purporting to bind future panels.

Fee-assessment litigation crossed professional boundaries

Mervin Phillips and Nathan Xiao-Phillips represented Cowessess First Nation from 2013 to 2016. The First Nation later sought an assessment of 83 invoices. Although the lawyers’ written retainer agreements recognized its right to have accounts assessed, they opposed assessment on the basis that it was not a person entitled to apply under the governing legislation.

The committee also relied on criticism of the lawyers’ litigation conduct in the resulting court proceedings. It found that their handling of the matter failed to discharge responsibilities to their client, the court and other members of the profession. The concern extended beyond vigorously contesting an assessment to the manner in which the litigation was conducted.

According to the agreed facts, the lawyers had already paid $60,000 in court costs to Cowessess and repaid the amounts owing after assessment. Those payments were separate from the new $11,250 regulatory costs order against each lawyer. The parties expressly agreed that no sanctionable conduct occurred during the later assessment proceedings themselves before the registrar.

Separate findings against each lawyer

Nathan’s additional misconduct concerned representation of the Cega-Kin Nakoda Oyate election tribunal associated with Carry-the-Kettle First Nation. After an election appeal produced a divided decision, he acted on instructions from the tribunal’s chair and minority without having been properly retained by the tribunal.

The committee found that he disregarded the majority’s objections and requests to meet without him, and failed to advise about the inability to transact tribunal business without proper quorum. The agreed facts describe purported tribunal decisions later quashed for lack of majority approval. This disciplinary ruling did not itself decide the election dispute.

Mervin’s separate finding concerned fees that were not fully disclosed, fair and reasonable in an immigration matter. A registrar had reduced the client’s bill from $9,912.22 to $5,464.12. The committee recorded that the excess and all awarded client costs had been repaid.

The committee accepted that Mervin’s fee misconduct was at the lower end of the relevant penalty range and involved no finding of dishonesty or trust-account impropriety. The client’s identity and personal immigration circumstances were not necessary to the disciplinary outcome.

Why the panel accepted reprimands

The resolution followed a hearing that began in 2024, a partially successful preliminary application, and a proposed challenge based on delay and abuse of process. The lawyers withdrew that challenge as part of the global resolution, entered pleas and proceeded on agreed facts at the August 18, 2026 penalty hearing. Other allegations against the individuals, and all allegations against their professional corporation, were stayed under the agreement.

The panel questioned the proposed sanctions closely. It considered whether the joint submission was reasonable, fit, within the acceptable range and consistent with public protection and confidence in the profession. It also recognized that negotiated resolutions conserve resources and provide certainty.

For Mervin, the panel weighed an older disciplinary finding and the expense and stress caused to clients against acceptance of responsibility, full financial repayment, the dated conduct and subsequent good conduct. It found the persistent litigation misconduct more serious than a single isolated lapse, but held that a reprimand remained an acceptable, lower-end sanction in the circumstances.

Nathan’s disciplinary history involved similar conduct, but the conduct now being addressed preceded the earlier sanction. The panel considered the combined effect of sanctions, his acceptance of responsibility and repayment, and his successful completion of two and a half years of practice supervision with a positive report. It also recognized the expense and stress caused to the affected First Nations.

Both sides persuaded the committee that new practice conditions were unnecessary. The panel accepted the joint proposal rather than imposing a suspension or further restrictions. Its treatment of the historical conduct and remedial record does not mean comparable misconduct will always attract only a reprimand.

The operative orders reprimand each lawyer and require each to pay $11,250 to the Law Society forthwith. These are disciplinary costs, not damages or a new refund award to the clients. The decision records earlier repayments but does not establish whether the new regulatory costs have since been paid.