THUNDER BAY — A once prominent lawyer has been found to have engaged in professional misconduct and will have his license suspended for at least one more year, but his counsel admitted he is unlikely to practice law again.
Chris Watkins appeared before a Law Society of Ontario Tribunal panel for a disposition hearing on Thursday. The panel, consisting of Jay Sengupta, Geoff Pollock, and Eva Krangle found the facts presented in the disposition established a finding of professional misconduct and that Watkins does not currently have the capacity to undertake the obligations of a law license.
The panel heard details of 14 allegations against Watkins, some dating back to 2005, with the majority of the more serious allegations occurring in 2017 and 2018.
The first allegations date between 2005 and 2011 when Legal Aid Ontario discovered billing irregularities relating to Watkins work as a legal aid lawyer in the amount of $169,000.
Law Society of Ontario counsel Joshua Elcombe outlined that Watkins failed to abide by Legal Aid Ontario’s requirements and there was found to be instances of double billing, more than 10 hours of work recorded in a day, inadequate details provided, and billing for proceedings that did not take place.
“Repeatedly for a period of roughly six years from 2005 to 2011, the respondent failed consistently and repeatedly to review the accounts submitted on his behalf to Legal Aid Ontario,” Elcombe said. “Rather he delegated it to law clerks. It is evident the law clerks made mistakes. Partly, this was due to that he was often verbally reporting information to staff from the courthouse due to his busy workload.”
Elcombe added that the Law Society is not alleging Watkins knowingly or intentionally over-billed Legal Aid Ontario, but rather failed to review the accounts submitted on his behalf.
Legal Aid Ontario was paid back approximately $150,000 but as of 2017, Watkins was still responsible for the remaining balance of $19,000.
The remaining allegations taking place between 2012 and 2018 involve Watkins’ handling of clients, miscommunication with clients, failing to attend court proceedings, being in conflict of interest, and failing to maintain financial records.
One of the allegations included Watkins being in conflict of interest by representing an accused client as well as the complainant and a key witness in the same matter.
The accused was found guilty but due to the conflict, the conviction was later overturned on appeal.
Another allegation detailed that Watkins settled a proceeding in a court matter but not on the terms as outlined by the client.
Watkins also represented himself on four Provincial Offences Act charges for driving with a suspended license but failed to attend court on his own behalf. He ultimately pleaded guilty and the charges were disposed of.
Other accusations include Watkins failing to respond to the Law Society and failing to maintain financial records.
The most consistent allegations against Watkins, particularly in 2017 and 2018, were numerous failures to attend court and failing to protect his client’s interests.
Elcombe acknowledged that Watkins was dealing with several health issues during this time period, including a substance use disorder, which may have contributed to these allegations.
“All of the allegations have been admitted,” Elcombe said. “Although the respondent’s health issues were contributing factors and help to explain why the misconduct occurred, the fact is throughout this time period he was still practicing law and acting as a lawyer. The health issues are not a complete defense.”
Elcombe added that Watkins failed to recognize he was not serving his clients well in 2018 and failed to take steps to ensure his client’s interests were protected.
Watkins’ license to practice law was suspended in October 2018 on an interlocutory basis as the Law Society proceedings were ongoing.
The Law Society was also seeking a motion under Section 37 of the Law Society Act to find that Watkins, from October 2018 and onwards, has been incapacitated and unable to fulfill the obligations of a license to practice law.
The panel agreed with the evidence and concluded the allegations of professional misconduct and capacity were established.
A joint submission on penalty was presented by Elcombe and Watkin’s counsel, Tony Potestio.
Elcombe acknowledged there were several mitigating factors in Watkins’ case, including him recently being diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, his physical health issues limiting his mobility, and a substance abuse disorder relating to an opioid addiction after being prescribed painkillers.
“That doubtless contributed to much, if not all, of the professional misconduct that took place in 2017 and 2018,” he said.
However, Elcombe also outlined significant aggravating factors, including Watkins’ past discipline history and criticism from judges.
Dating back as far as 1999, Watkins received at least four warnings from the Law Society of Ontario and judges for his failure to attend court.
This included one contempt of court charge in 1999 that was later overturned and a 15-day suspension in 2001 for wasting judicial resources, acting in conflict of interest, and failing to review affidavits properly.
“It’s notable that the respondent has a history of inattention to his obligation and a history of failing to attend court and has received repeated warnings,” Elcombe said.
When given the opportunity to speak, Watkins thanked the panel for all their hard work and apologized for his actions.
“A lot of it has been coming to terms with things,” he said. “I offer my heartfelt and deepest remorse to anyone who was affected by my actions.”
Watkins added that he has been seeking treatment for his substance abuse issues and is volunteering in the community. He is also measuring things more studiously and takes more time with what he involves himself in, admitting he previously had difficulty saying no to people and would often take on very large workloads, including pro-bono work.
“I have taken a lot of steps and a lot of hard work to ensure those issues never happen again,” he said.
The joint submission recommended a retroactive suspension of three years, which Elcombe admitted was more symbolic in nature, as Watkins has already been suspended for more than four years on an interloculary basis.
However, Watkins is under an indefinite suspension until he is able to prove his capacity to practice law again.
If and when Watkins does prove his capacity and chooses to practice law again, he will be subject to a one-year punitive suspension before being permitted to do so.
“The one-year suspension demonstrates to the respondent and the public that there has to be an actual punitive element given the severity of the misconduct and that real clients were impacted and that there was harm to our legal aid system,” Elcombe said.
“It is fair to say the disposition reflects a balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging there was some very significant professional misconduct involving the legal aid system and numerous clients, but on the other hand it reflects there are important mitigating factors including significant health issues and significant remorse being shown by Mr. Watkins.”
If Watkins does resume practicing law, he will also be required to sign an undertaking that will impose further restrictions and protections, with potential terms including drug testing, medical reporting, restricted access to trust accounts, and only practicing as an employee of a lawyer approved by the Law Society of Ontario.
Watkins was also ordered to pay costs in the amount of $10,000, with four years to pay.
Potestio said the public is being well served by the order, but admitted it is unlikely Watkins will ever practice law again.
“The practical effect of the order is fairly onerous,” he said. “Given his age, it will be difficult for him to get back into his practice given the order of this hearings. And in small towns like Thunder Bay, it can be damaging to a reputation.”
