Butt v Law Society

An appeal from a specialist disciplinary tribunal is by way of rehearing. The appellant must demonstrate an error below, while the appellate court gives the tribunal an appropriate measure of respect without undue deference. Removal from the Register of Foreign Lawyers is justified where the practitioner’s misconduct demonstrates a serious failure to understand and comply with professional obligations, particularly duties of supervision and client-account management. The court assesses the sanction in the context of the totality of the misconduct. Minor or historic breaches may not individually justify removal, but serious regulatory failures and apparent compliance without actual compliance may properly support removal to protect the public and the profession.

Abdul Qayyum Butt, a registered foreign lawyer, appealed against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 12 November 2004. The Tribunal found allegations proved concerning unauthorised advocacy, inadequate standards of work, misleading professional stationery, inadequate supervision, wrongful holding out of a partnership, misleading statements, failures concerning client funds and accountants’ reports, and late indemnity insurance. It ordered removal of his name from the Register of Foreign Lawyers and payment of 75 per cent of the relevant costs. The central issues were whether the findings were sustainable and whether removal was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court adopted the flexible appellate approach described in Langford v The Law Society [2002] EWHC 2802 Admin. The appeal was by way of rehearing, but the appellant had to demonstrate an error below. Appropriate respect was owed to the specialist Tribunal, without more deference than the circumstances warranted.
2. The Tribunal had gone too far in two respects. The supervision allegation should have been confined to Mr Mansoor and Miss Ruparalia; findings concerning Mr Asghar, Mr Bazeer and Mr Kapila fell outside the allegation advanced. The indemnity-insurance allegation should have resulted in a simple rule breach, rather than conduct unbefitting, in light of the way the case had been presented and amended.
3. Subject to those points, the findings were properly open to the Tribunal. The evidence justified findings concerning unauthorised advocacy, poor work, misleading stationery, inadequate supervision, sham partnership arrangements, misleading statements, client funds and accountants’ reports. The firm was engaged in conducting litigation, so Mr Butt could not rely on note (j) to rule 13 as a registered foreign lawyer qualified to supervise.
4. The sanction was imposed for the totality of the misconduct. The historic advocacy and poor-service allegations, and the insurance delay, were not individually sufficient. In contrast, lack of effective supervision was very serious because supervision was vital to public protection. Creating the appearance of compliance by naming persons as partners who neither were partners nor provided supervision aggravated the misconduct.
5. Dishonesty had not been alleged and did not need to be proved. Confusion or misunderstanding could nevertheless demonstrate an inability to provide legal services in conformity with regulatory requirements. The failure to understand obligations, together with the risks created by inadequate systems for client funds and accountants’ reports, justified removal for protection of the public and the reputation of the profession. Mr Butt was ordered to pay the Law Society’s appeal costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: On 12 November 2004, found all allegations proved, ordered removal from the Register of Foreign Lawyers and ordered payment of 75 per cent of the relevant costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed, subject to correcting two aspects of the Tribunal’s findings. Mr Butt was ordered to pay the Law Society’s appeal costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.