Margaret Emily Watkins was admitted to the California Bar 13th December 1994, but has since been disbarred. Margaret graduated from Western State University COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Margaret Emily Watkins |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 13 December 1994 (30 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 175240 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 951-368-2555 |
| Fax Number | 951-368-2550 |
Schools
| Law School | Western State University COL (Fullerton CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Western State University (Fullerton CA) |
Address
| Current Address | Inland Counties Legal Services, 1737 Atlanta Ave #H-2 Riverside, CA 92507 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 23 March 2007 | Disbarred (18 years, 1 month ago) Disbarment 06-N-12661 |
|---|---|
| 16 October 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-N-12661 |
| 11 September 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-N-12661 |
| 7 July 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-N-12661 (18 years, 10 months ago) |
| 15 January 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-12668 |
| 6 May 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years ago) Ordered inactive 04-O-12668 |
| 26 January 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-12668 (20 years, 3 months ago) |
| 13 December 1994 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (30 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
March 23, 2007 MARGARET E. WATKINS [#175240], 54, of Riverside was disbarred March 23, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court, formerly rule 955. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Watkins did not comply with rule 955, as required in a 2006 disciplinary order. She did not submit to the bar court an affidavit stating she notified her clients, opposing counsel, courts or other interested parties of her suspension from practice. The underlying discipline was imposed for failure to perform legal services competently, account for client funds, return unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's investigation.Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.January 15, 2006 MARGARET EMIL WATKINS [#175240], 53, of Riverside was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until she makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and she was ordered to take the MPRE. If the suspension exceeds 90 days, she must comply with rule 955. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2006. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Watkins committed four acts of misconduct in a paternity action filed against her client by San Diego County. A first action was dismissed with prejudice and Watkins’ client asked her to oppose a motion to set aside the dismissal. He paid a fee of $1,500.Although the court set aside the stipulated judgment, Watkins told her client he had prevailed and it was unlikely the county would file again. In fact, the county Department of Child Support Services filed a second complaint, and again, the client had Watkins represent him, paying a flat fee of $2,800. The court rejected Watkins’ answer to the complaint because she used an incorrect case number. She incorrectly told the client, however, that the answer was returned because the district attorney had not filed a complaint. She also asked for an additional $2,000, and after claiming she had timely filed an answer to the complaint, asked for another $2,500 plus out of pocket expenses.She later asked for filing fees, and although she earlier said she filed an answer, told the client she would do so once she received more money. It was only after DCSS requested to enter default against her client that Watkins finally filed an answer, a year after the complaint was filed.After the client hired a new lawyer, Watkins agreed to refund $2,000 and to repay $3,000 to settle a dispute over unearned fees. She has not returned any money to the client.The bar court found that Watkins failed to perform legal services competently, render an accounting of client funds, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. |