A courtroom drama unfolded last fall, but not the one you might expect. Lawyer Mitchell Worsoff stood representing a Canadian Forces soldier facing a serious accusation, a scene familiar to anyone acquainted with the justice system. However, a startling headline soon emerged, casting a shadow over his professional life: “Toronto lawyer representing soldier in sex assault trial is facing his own sex crime charges.”
The allegations were deeply disturbing. A woman came forward in May 2023, claiming sexual abuse by Worsoff during her youth, between 2008 and 2013. Charges swiftly followed – sexual assault, sexual touching of a minor, invitation to sexual touching, and even uttering threats. Despite the gravity of these accusations, Worsoff continued to practice law, maintaining his innocence and complying with bail conditions.
The Law Society of Ontario, the self-governing body for lawyers, initiated an investigation in January 2024. As the case gained public attention, fueled by the CBC report, the Society sought information from the Crown and, crucially, asked Worsoff to voluntarily suspend his practice. He refused, choosing instead to defend himself and his career.
The Law Society then took the unusual step of requesting a temporary suspension from the independent Law Society Tribunal. Their argument centered on protecting public confidence in the legal profession, citing past cases where lawyers facing similar charges had been temporarily removed from practice. But this case proved different, hinging on a critical element: Worsoff’s willingness to speak.
Under oath, Worsoff vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing them as “blatantly false” and a product of time. He characterized the accusations as “ridiculous” and “shameful,” asserting a complete lack of evidence. He pointed to contradictory documents that he believed would support his defense. This direct, unchallenged testimony proved pivotal.
The independent panel refused the suspension request. They reasoned that silencing Worsoff would undermine the principles of justice. The tribunal emphasized the importance of direct evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the potential damage to a lawyer’s livelihood and reputation. They questioned whether the Law Society was attempting to pre-judge the case, a role reserved for the courts.
The decision sparked debate. Could allowing a lawyer facing such serious allegations to continue practicing erode public trust? The panel disagreed, stating that a suspension, given the evidence presented, would be equally damaging to the administration of justice. They believed a reasonable public would understand the fundamental tenets of Canadian law and the weight given to unchallenged testimony.
Worsoff declined to comment on the matter. The Law Society, however, indicated they are reviewing the tribunal’s decision, leaving the future of the case – and Worsoff’s career – uncertain. The situation highlights the delicate balance between public perception, due process, and the rights of the accused within the legal system.
UPDATE: Mitchell Worsoff was acquitted by a judge on all charges in May 2025.
