The Law Society Tribunal has ordered the immediate suspension of Ontario lawyer Winfield Edward Corcoran, following a motion brought by the Law Society of Ontario1. The decision, released on October 3, 2025, determined there were reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Corcoran poses a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice. The panel based its serious finding on two primary issues from a client complaint: the lawyer’s attempt to access $50,000 from his client’s bank account without her authorization and his persistent refusal to comply with multiple court orders requiring him to pay costs and refund over $180,000 in legal fees to the same client. Mr. Corcoran, who was licensed in 1992 and represented himself at the videoconference hearing, had opposed the motion.
The proceeding was a motion for an interlocutory suspension, which is not a final finding of misconduct but an interim measure granted while a full investigation and hearing are pending. Under section 49.27 of the Law Society Act, the Tribunal can issue such an order if it finds reasonable grounds for believing there is a significant risk of harm. The panel, chaired by Sophie Martel, noted it must weigh the strength of the evidence of the alleged misconduct and balance the need to protect the public against the adverse effects of the suspension on the lawyer. The Law Society brought the motion based on two separate client complaints, though the Tribunal ultimately based its decision entirely on the allegations from the first complaint, finding the evidence on the second complaint was insufficient at this early stage.
The first complaint, identified as the JH complaint, was received in February 2022. Mr. Corcoran was retained by JH in April 2020 to represent her in an estate litigation matter. JH was being sued by the estate trustees of her deceased former partner, who alleged she had received gifted assets through undue influence. A key piece of this litigation was a court order issued by Justice Broad on April 19, 2020, with the consent of all parties. This order froze $900,000 that had been deposited into a Guaranteed Investment Certificate in JH’s account at Meridian Credit Union. The order, however, explicitly permitted JH to remove $50,000 from the funds each following calendar year, beginning February 1, 2021, with the remainder of the funds to stay frozen until the Court ordered otherwise.
The dispute that led to the Law Society’s motion began in late 2021 when Mr. Corcoran sought to increase his legal retainer. On December 28, 2021, he wrote to JH about the $50,000 that would become available to her on February 1, 2022, stating, “I want you to bring me all of it if you can or at minimum $30,000.00 to increase your deposit.” JH replied that she was confused by the request. Mr. Corcoran responded that he could quit if she did not make arrangements for him to get paid. He renewed his demand on the evening of January 26, 2022, writing, “I expect you to bring all of the $50,000.00 to me to increase the deposit against my account.” The following morning, January 27, 2022, JH replied by asking what he meant and “how he expected her to live,” indicating she would rather pay his invoices monthly as they had previously arranged.
Later that same day, after receiving his client’s clear refusal, Mr. Corcoran replied, “I am not arguing with you. If you do not put the money in my trust you may not be happy with it. I must get paid. End of story.” Then, without his client’s knowledge or authorization, Mr. Corcoran sent a letter by fax directly to Meridian Credit Union. In the letter, he attached the court order from Justice Broad and, referencing his knowledge of that order, directed the bank to “send by wire transfer the amount of $50,000.00 that becomes available February 1, 2022” to his law firm’s trust account. Evidence at the hearing confirmed that Mr. Corcoran did not provide a copy of this letter to his client until the following day, January 28, after he had already sent it. Meridian did not comply with Mr. Corcoran’s direction.
Mr. Corcoran did not dispute sending the letter. His defence was that the court order, which stated “anyone… having knowledge of this Order” was permitted to remove the $50,000, allowed him to make the request. The Tribunal panel found this interpretation to be unreasonable, stating the order “did not give him access to his client’s property without her knowledge or authorization.” The panel found that trying to take money from a client’s bank account without that client’s knowledge or authorization “raises serious integrity and trust concerns” and provides reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant risk of harm to the public. The panel also noted Mr. Corcoran’s “continued argument that he was entitled to request the funds” showed a “lack of insight” into his professional obligations.
Following this incident, JH dismissed Mr. Corcoran in February 2022 and commenced a proceeding to assess his accounts, which involved 25 invoices totaling over $240,000 in fees and disbursements. This assessment proceeding led to the second primary allegation supporting the suspension. During the course of the assessment, Mr. Corcoran was ordered to pay costs to JH on two separate occasions. On January 27, 2023, Justice Donohue awarded JH costs of $10,000, payable within 30 days. Later, on April 3, 2023, Assessment Officer Black granted an adjournment requested by Mr. Corcoran but awarded costs of that adjournment to JH in the amount of $15,000.
The assessment hearing was rescheduled to October 4, 2023. At that hearing, Mr. Corcoran continued to take the position that the matter had been settled, despite the assessment officer’s prior emails stating it was not settled and would proceed. Mr. Corcoran subsequently refused to call any evidence to justify his bills. As a result, Assessment Officer Black found that Mr. Corcoran had failed to meet his onus of proof and assessed his accounts at “nil.” The assessment officer issued a report and certificate ordering Mr. Corcoran to refund JH the $172,349 she had already paid, plus $2,206.16 in pre-judgment interest and $6,000 in costs, for a total amount due of $180,555.16.
Mr. Corcoran did not appeal this order or any of the other cost orders. As of the suspension hearing, he had not paid any of the amounts owed. In his written communications with the Law Society, Mr. Corcoran insisted that he “does not owe any costs payable by order of Justice Donohue and/or Black.” The Tribunal found this continued denial of his obligations to be another serious integrity issue. The panel wrote, “As officers of the courts, lawyers are expected to adhere to court-issued rulings. Disagreeing with an order does not give a lawyer permission to refuse to abide by it… The respondent’s argument that he does not owe the costs, when the court orders say otherwise, raises reasonable grounds to believe that there is a significant risk of harm.”
The Law Society’s motion also presented allegations from a second, more recent complaint received in April 2025 from a client identified as CL. This complaint alleged Mr. Corcoran was volatile and aggressive, forged her signature on an affidavit, acted without instructions, and charged over $100,000 in excessive fees. The Law Society focused on the affidavit allegation, which involved a document remotely commissioned on February 23, 2023, by Mr. Corcoran’s assistant and spouse, Marcia Kathy Corcoran. During an examination for discovery in a related proceeding, CL denied the signature on the affidavit was hers. The transcript showed Mr. Corcoran first said the signature was his, then said it “was sworn in error,” then suggested it must be CL’s, before finally confirming it was his signature and that he “swore it on CL’s behalf” remotely.
The Tribunal panel, however, explicitly stated that it did not rely on the CL complaint to make its finding. The panel noted the investigation was in its early stages and the evidence was limited. Regarding the signature, the panel found it was “at least equally possible” that Mr. Corcoran was not trying to deliberately mislead the justice system but had “affixed his initials over that of CL’s name in error.” Mr. Corcoran had argued he misunderstood the regulation for remote commissioning and denied any fraudulent intent. The panel concluded that while his interpretation of the rule may be wrong, “a misunderstanding of the law is not usually interpreted to be an integrity breach that attracts a lengthy suspension or revocation,” and the evidence at this time did not meet the test for an interlocutory order.
In its final analysis, the Tribunal returned to the JH complaint. The panel concluded that an interlocutory suspension was the only order that could adequately protect the public. The panel stated that Mr. Corcoran’s “attempt to take his client’s property without her knowledge or consent and his continued lack of insight” meant that no practice restrictions would be sufficient. The panel found there “remains too high a risk that the respondent would seek to access clients’ property or money without their permission simply because he ‘must get paid.'” Furthermore, the panel concluded that practice restrictions would not be effective “when the respondent has already shown that he will not adhere to judicial rulings if he disagrees with them.” The Tribunal ordered that Mr. Corcoran’s licence to practise law be suspended on an interlocutory basis, commencing immediately.
Read more about proceedings involving regulated professions here.
