Butt v Law Society

J U D G M E N T

1. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: This is an appeal by Abdul Qayyum Butt against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, whereby it was ordered that his name should be removed from the Register of Foreign Lawyers and that he should pay 75 per cent of the costs of and incidental to the application to the Tribunal and the enquiry.

2. Registered foreign lawyers are foreign lawyers who are registered by the Law Society under section 89 of, and schedule 14(2) to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. They are subject in broad terms to the same rules and principles as govern the conduct of solicitors; though certain additional limitations also apply to them. Mr Butt had been registered as a foreign lawyer in May 1996.

3. The proceedings before the Tribunal related both to him and to a Mr Veeravagu who, for a period of time, had carried on practice as a solicitor in partnership, or purported partnership, with Mr Butt. This was one of four cases against Mr Veeravagu. The order against him in respect of all four cases was that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and pay costs. In relation to the case where he was a respondent with Mr Butt, he was ordered to pay 25 per cent of the costs. There is no appeal before us by Mr Veeravagu.

4. The allegations considered by the Tribunal were, in part, against Mr Butt alone and in part against him and Mr Veeravagu jointly. The initial allegations against Mr Butt alone were that he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a registered foreign lawyer in each of the following respects, namely that he had: a) appeared before Magistrates as advocate when he had no right of audience, and b) breached rule 1(E) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 with respect to his standard of work. The allegations against Mr Butt and Mr Veeravagu jointly were that they had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a registered foreign lawyer and a solicitor respectively in each of the following respects, namely that they had: (c) breached the Solicitors Publicity Code 1990 in their use of professional stationery, d) failed to comply with the terms of Rule 13 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (and as amended) with respect to their failure to ensure adequate and requisite supervision of the firm A Q Butt & Co, and e) held themselves out as being a partnership, but Mr Veeravagu was not discharging responsibilities arising from partnership.

5. Supplementary allegations against Mr Butt alone were that he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a registered foreign lawyer in each of the following respects, namely that he had: f) further failed to comply with the terms of Rule 13 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (and as amended) with respect to his failure to ensure adequate and requisite supervision of the firm A Q Butt & Co, g) made misleading statements in correspondence to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, h) failed to pay clients' funds into a client bank account, contrary to Rule 3 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1991 and, since 1 May 2000, contrary to Rule 15(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, i) failed to deliver Accountant's reports, notwithstanding the terms of section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Rules made thereunder, and j) failed to comply with the Solicitors Indemnity Rules 2000. We are told that allegation (j) was amended at the hearing before the Tribunal so as to charge a simple rule breach rather than conduct unbefitting.

6. The hearing before the Tribunal took place on 21 September 2004; Mr Butt represented himself, as he has done before us. He did not give evidence but made submissions. He denied all the allegations. The Tribunal issued its decision on 12 November 2004. It found all the allegations proved and made the order to which I have already referred.

7. Because of the wide ranging nature of the criticisms that Mr Butt makes of the decision, it will be helpful if I refer to the facts and issues relating to each of the allegations against him in turn. These matters are well summarised in the Tribunal's decision. In addition, the written submissions of Mr Williams QC, who presented the case against Mr Butt in the Tribunal and who has appeared before us on behalf of The Law Society, have provided this court with references to the relevant documentary material. All of the evidence before the Tribunal was in documentary form.

A. Wrongful Appearance as an Advocate.

8. The allegation against Mr Butt was that in November 1998, he appeared as an advocate in child care proceedings in the Brentford Magistrates' Court when he was not permitted to do so. The status of a registered foreign lawyer does not confer any right of audience or right to conduct litigation in the courts of England and Wales. A complaint about this matter was made to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors by a firm of solicitors acting for the child's guardian ad litem and by the magistrates' clerk.

9. Mr Butt's response to those complaints was to say that he had gone to court expecting counsel to attend on his client's behalf. Unfortunately counsel was unable to attend but did not get a message through to him about this. While he was waiting, the parties were called into court. He went into court not with a view for appearing as an advocate for the client, but as a representative of the firm. He had intended to explain the position to the court but got confused and did not feel it was appropriate to interrupt proceedings; he spoke to the clerk to request an adjournment but did not address the magistrates.

10. There are passages in the documents and correspondence that we have seen where Mr Butt seemed to accept that he did appear in court on this one occasion, and says it was a small mistake on his part. In any event, after considering the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal found as a fact that he had appeared as an advocate although as a registered foreign lawyer he was not entitled to do so.

B. Breach of Practice Rule 1(e).

11. This allegation arose out of the same child care case in the Brentford Magistrates' Court: although not entitled to conduct litigation, Mr Butt acted for the mother throughout the course of the care proceedings.

12. Rule 1(e) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 contains the basic principle that a solicitor must not do anything in the course of practice which compromises or impairs a proper standard of work. Evidence as to the poor quality of Mr Butt's work came from the solicitors who made the complaint about him. It is summarised as follows at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Tribunal's decision:

"7. The litigation was conducted on behalf of a vulnerable lady, a mother who was contesting the making of an interim care order. There had been serious deficiencies in her representation. Counsel instructed on behalf of the child considered that Mr Butt did not appear to have any significant knowledge or understanding of the relevant legislation and his conduct of the proceedings was unusual. A statement had been required from the child's mother (Mr Butt's client) which was filed late at about 5.00 pm on the day before the substantive hearing. Another witness statement was filed at the hearing. The statement did not address issues raised in the psychiatrist's report, the guardian ad litem's report or comment on the care plan. Counsel had not been fully and properly instructed at the hearing. The attendance of a witness, whom the other side wished to cross-examine, had not been arranged nor had the attendance of an interpreter for the mother (Mr Butt's client) - although this was arranged at short notice in the course of the first morning of the hearing. Mr Butt gave advice to the child's older brother without recognising that there may well have been a conflict of interest between the mother and the older brother, who was of age and might have been in a position to make his own application concerning the child.

8. Mr Butt dispatched an unqualified person to attend court on 8th July 1999."

13. In his submissions to the Tribunal, Mr Butt accepted that his was not a matrimonial practice and he had no expertise in such work, but he said he had done the best he could for the client. The Tribunal found that, in relation to these proceedings, the standard of work of the firm, of which he was effectively sole principal, fell far short of a proper standard.

C. Breach of Code concerning Professional Stationery.

14. The Solicitors Publicity Code 1990 applies to registered foreign lawyers as it does to solicitors. By paragraph 12(a), it applies to a letterhead and matters similarly forming part of professional stationery. The allegation of breach of the code concerned the firm's notepaper which was in use from its inception in 1996 until 2000. First, the header to the notepaper referred to Mr Veeravagu as "solicitor" and to Mr Butt as "RFL". By paragraph 6 of the Code in the case of a practice including a Registered foreign lawyer as a partner, if the description of the firm includes "solicitor" it must also include the words "Registered foreign lawyer", i.e. the full expression is required and the abbreviation RFL is not sufficient.

15. At the hearing before the Tribunal, Mr Butt admitted this breach but pointed out that it had been rectified, as indeed was the case, though the impermissible abbreviation had been in use for about four years. The second aspect to the allegation was that the footer to the notepaper described the firm as "Experts in Immigration, Welfare, Criminal and Matrimonial." Paragraph 1(c) of the Code states that publicity must not be inaccurate or misleading in any way. Paragraph 2(c) states that it is not improper to claim to be a specialist or an expert in a particular field, provided that such a claim can be justified. The case against Mr Butt was that the claim to expertise in matrimonial matters, at least, was entirely unjustified and misleading. He accepted that he did not have any expertise in matrimonial matters, but his case was that he had access to those with the relevant expertise.

16. The Tribunal found as a fact that the stationery was misleading and in breach of the Code. There was a wider issue about the misleading issue of the notepaper in that it was alleged that Mr Veeravagu was not a true partner at all; but this is dealt with under a separate head, to which I will come in a moment.

D. Breach of Practice Rule 13 concerning Supervision.

17. Rule 13 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 provides, in summary, that the principals in a practice must ensure that their practice is adequately supervised and managed. There must be at least one principal who is a solicitor qualified to supervise and every office of the practice must have at least one solicitor qualified to supervise, for whom that office is his or her normal place of work.

18. Note (j) to Rule 13 provides that a registered foreign lawyer who is a principal in the practice may fulfil the role of a solicitor qualified to supervise, provided that the practice has at least one principal who is a solicitor and the practice does not exercise or assume responsibility for any right of audience or right to conduct litigation.

19. The allegation related to the period of purported partnership between Mr Butt and Mr Veeravagu from September 1996 to June 2000. It was contended that Mr Veeravagu did not provide adequate supervision and that Mr Butt, as a registered foreign lawyer, was not qualified to supervise because the requirements in note (j) were not met: in particular, Mr Veeravagu was not properly described as a principal since he was not, for the most part, discharging any partnership duties, there was no other solicitor principal involved and the firm conducted litigation.

20. Mr Veeravagu's stance was to accept that he had not supervised the firm. He said he used to visit the office two to three times a week, but sometimes did not visit for two to three weeks. He described Mr Butt as the principal of the firm and said that Mr Butt acted of his own accord in attending the Magistrates' Court and conducting litigation. At the hearing before the Tribunal, Mr Butt accepted the need for supervision by a solicitor; he also accepted that from the latter part of 1998 Mr Veeravagu had hardly ever attended the office. The Tribunal found as fact there was no effective supervision at the practice at times when such supervision was required by Rule 13.

E. Wrongful Holding Out of Partnership.

21. There is a link between this allegation and the allegation just considered. The case against Mr Butt was effectively that Mr Veeravagu was a flag of convenience for Mr Butt, giving the firm the appearance of compliance in terms of supervision when it was not in fact compliant. It was alleged that theirs was a sham partnership. Mr Veeravagu, aside from paying only irregular visits to the office, did not share profits with Mr Butt, was not mandated to sign cheques and was in fact involved in four other practices at the same time.

22. Mr Butt said that Mr Veeravagu was always available when he wanted him and that, initially, he was attending only the one office, although later he might have been working elsewhere. He accepted that Mr Veeravagu was not a signatory on any partnership bank account, but said that that was not necessary when partners had strong faith in each other. He admitted there was no fee-sharing in the sense put forward, but said that the firm paid Mr Veeravagu for the job he was doing and that each would refer clients to the other, so as to provide a better service and avoid costs of interpretation. Mr Butt referred his English and Sri Lankan clients to Mr Veeravagu, and Mr Veeravagu's Urdu and Punjabi clients were referred to him.

23. The Tribunal found as a fact that Mr Veeravagu was not properly to be described as being in partnership with Mr Butt.

F. Further Breach of Practice Rule 13.

24. This allegation, and those that follow, related to the position after Mr Veeravagu's involvement in the firm had ceased in June 2000. The same supervisory obligations applied under Rule 13 as before. Material provided to the office for the supervision of solicitors by Mr Butt and by solicitors who, at one stage, acted on his behalf, identified a succession of partners in the firm with joining and leaving dates. The allegation related to two of those: a Mr Mansoor, who was shown as a partner between 14 September and 5 October 20001 and Miss Ruparalia, who was shown as partner between 5 October 2001 and the closure of the firm on 4 January 2002. Each was shown as a partner on the firm's notepaper during the relevant period. No other partners were shown during these periods and there were no other candidates for the provision of the necessary supervision.

25. The evidence before the Tribunal was that Mr Mansoor was at no time a partner; indeed, he denied ever having acted for the firm. Mr Butt conceded that Mr Mansoor had not accepted a partnership and had not discharged any duties of supervision. Similarly, the evidence was that Miss Ruparalia was at no time a partner; she said she had acted only as an assistant solicitor and only for a period of ten days. The Tribunal found that neither of them could properly be described as partners of Mr Butt and that neither of them had performed any effective role as supervising solicitor.

26. The Tribunal made a similar finding in relation to three other people who had been identified in the material put forward by Mr Butt on his behalf. They were Mr Asghar, Mr Bazeer and Mr Kapila. However, those names do not seem to have been included within the allegation as presented to the Tribunal .

G. Misleading The Law Society.

27. This related to statements made by Mr Butt with respect to the subject matter of allegation (f). The case against him, which was supported by the evidence that led to the adverse finding on allegation (f), was that the statements were untrue. The Tribunal found that his explanations of the position had been insufficiently full and frank to avoid The Law Society being misled.

H & I. Breaches of the Accounts Rules et cetera.

28. These two allegations are related and can be considered together. Rule 3 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1991, which were the applicable rules for the first part of the relevant period, provided that every solicitor who held or received clients' money should, without delay, pay such money into a client account. That rule was replaced from 1 May 2000 by Rule 15 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, which is to similar effect.

29. The case against Mr Butt was that in the course of his immigration practice, he regularly received surety monies which counted as clients' monies and which he was obliged under the Rules to pay without delay into a properly designated bank account. His position prior to the Tribunal hearing appeared to be that he did hold surety monies which were kept in a separate account, although he did not regard the surety monies as clients' money and the account was not a designated client account.

30. Shortly before the hearing, Mr Butt served on Mr Williams what purported to be accountants' reports for the years 1997 to 2003 inclusive. Those reports showed that throughout the relevant period Mr Butt had been holding substantial amounts of clients' money. The receipt or holding of clients' money also triggers the obligation to produce Accountant's reports. Under section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974, such reports must be delivered within six months of the end of the relevant accounting period. The reports served by Mr Butt on Mr Williams were not just extremely late, they had not in fact been delivered to The Law Society at all. Moreover, a covering letter from the accountants explained that although signing the reports they were not qualified to carry out audits and had not done so. Thus, there was a multiple failure to comply with the regulatory requirements.

31. The Tribunal made a finding that Mr Butt had received client funds, which should have been paid into a client account, with a consequent failure to have accountants' reports prepared and delivered in accordance with section 34 of the 1974 Act.

J. Breach of Indemnity Rules.

32. This was the last of the allegations against Mr Butt and was described by Mr Williams as the least serious. He sought a finding of rule breach, but did not seek to contend that the conduct amounted to conduct unbefitting. I have mentioned that the allegation was amended accordingly at the hearing. Mr Williams tells us that this is what happened, although it does not appear on the face of the Tribunal's decision.

33. The point of substance was that Mr Butt had failed to obtain professional indemnity insurance cover in the market by 1 September 2001, and in those circumstances he ought to have applied before that date for cover from what is called 'the assigned risks pool'. His application was late, made on 9 October 2001, but it was accepted and a substantial premium was paid. There appears to be no issue over these basic facts, and that led to the Tribunal finding as a fact that Mr Butt had failed to comply with the Solicitors Indemnity Rules 2001 by neglecting to apply in time for cover from the assigned risks pool.

The Tribunal's Further Comments.

34. Having set out its findings of fact, the Tribunal made the following observations in relation to its decision at paragraphs 45 and 46:

"45. The Tribunal found all of the allegations against each of the Respondents to have been substantiated. It appeared to the Tribunal that Mr Butt was of the opinion that if superficially he appeared to comply with the Practice Rules that was good enough. He did not appear to understand that apparent compliance when there was no actual compliance was in itself a dishonest approach. At the hearing, at which Mr Butt represented himself, he appeared in a number of respects not to understand the matters which had been alleged against him. In particular, the Tribunal noticed his insistence that he had never taken on penny of clients' money. That had never been alleged against him. What had been alleged was that he had not complied with the Solicitors Accounts Rules and in particular had not opened a client account in which to hold client monies.

"46. The Tribunal was troubled that the matters alleged against Mr Butt reflected his failure to grasp the obligations and duties which those who practice as registered foreign lawyers had placed upon them. The Tribunal concluded that in order to protect the public and good reputation of the solicitors' profession and indeed that of registered foreign lawyers, it was right that Mr Butt's name should be removed from the Register of foreign lawyers."

The Approach of the Court on Appeal

35. I do not think there is any dispute about the correct general approach of the court in a case of this kind. Mr Williams has referred us to Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512, but it is plain that a greater degree of flexibility is now appropriate than was suggested in Bolton . In Langford v The Law Society [2002] EWHC 2802 Admin at paragraph 14, Rose LJ cited passages from a number of later authorities to that effect, and said that he was approaching the determination of the appeal in accordance with the test indicated in those passages. I would adopt the same approach in the present case.

36. In essence, although I stress this is the briefest of summaries, the appeal is by way of a rehearing; it is incumbent on the appellant to demonstrate an error in the proceedings below; the court will accord an appropriate measure of respect to the judgment of the specialist Tribunal, but will not defer to its judgment more than is warranted by the circumstances.

Mr Butt's Case on the Appeal.

37. Mr Butt has presented his case very courteously, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that his submissions were not as crisp and focused as they could usefully have been. It is necessary to extract his case from a number of sources, including not only his oral submissions but also his written grounds and skeleton argument and a letter he handed into the court this morning to which we have given careful consideration.

38. In the broadest of terms, he contends the Tribunal's decision was wrong, illegal, irrational, unjust and in violation of his human rights. He complains both about the findings of misconduct and about the sanction of removal from the Register, which he says is excessive and unfairly denies him the opportunity to pursue his chosen profession. He also says that at the age of 68 he is unable to find alternative work.

39. Unfortunately, his submissions on the issue of misconduct and those concerning sanction often elided into one another. I will try to take his main points in an order that reflects the order of the allegations against him.

40. In relation to allegation (a), he submits that his appearance in the Magistrates' Court was simply to defend the interests of his client in circumstances where counsel had not turned up. He has explained the situation in which he found himself and how he asked the magistrates' clerk for an adjournment. He says this was only a single occasion and it was a small mistake.

41. He makes a similar point with respect to allegation (b). He says that the child care case in which he acted was a one-off, he was trying to help the client by taking it and he did the best he could for her, but this was not his field of work. His work is in the field of immigration where he says there have been no complaints.

42. In relation to allegation (c), one of the points he makes is that he was writing regularly to The Law Society at the time on the firm's notepaper, yet nobody expressed concern about the use of "RFL". Indeed, the material before us includes correspondence passing between Mr Butt and the Head of Guidance of the Professional Ethics Division, in which the matter was not picked up.

43. On the central allegations concerning lack of supervision and wrongful holding out of partnership, Mr Butt's case is essentially that he thought at the time that everything was all right. In the early years, Mr Veeravagu performed the role of supervising solicitor. Mr Butt thought that when he, Mr Butt, had three years' experience as a registered foreign lawyer, he was entitled under Rule 13 to supervise his office. He informed Mr Veeravagu of this, and Mr Veeravagu reduced his visits; if there was a breach of the Rule, it was an innocent mistake.

44. When Mr Veeravagu stood down as partner, Mr Asghar came in as a partner. Then Mr Veeravagu came back for a while, when Mr Asghar refused to continue as partner. When Mr Veeravagu finally stood down, Mr Butt ensured that other partners joined the firm, as detailed in the information he gave The Law Society. All the partners supervised well, except that Mr Mansoor and Miss Ruparalia let him down. He says that when Miss Ruparalia told him that she regarded herself as an assistant solicitor and not as a partner, he immediately contacted The Law Society by phone to inform them. There is no supporting documentation.

45. Mr Butt denies that the firm conducted litigation within the meaning of note (j) to Rule 13, which is one of the matters relevant to whether he was entitled as a Registered foreign lawyer to supervise the office himself. He says that the work of the firm was immigration work and although it involved a lot of representation before immigration adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, this did not count as the conduct of litigation.

46. With regard to allegation (h) concerning clients' funds and the accountant's reports, he said he never regarded the monies he held as being clients' funds.

47. Another matter of particular concern to Mr Butt is the indemnity insurance referred to in allegation (j). He takes issue with the circumstances that led to his failing to obtaining indemnity insurance on the market and having to get cover from the assigned risks pool. He says that the amount of premium he had to pay for that cover was punishment enough, and he questions whether he should have been required to pay indemnity insurance at all if it is said that the practice was not a genuine partnership.

48. I have not covered all the points that he raises, but I think I have given a sufficient indication of the case advanced. Perhaps I should also mention specifically that Mr Butt has produced brief summaries of other cases before the Panel which he relies on as precedents, where practitioners were not struck off for disciplinary offences.

Conclusion

49. I shall deal first with the findings of misconduct. There are two respects in which, in my judgment, the Tribunal went further than it should have done. First in the case of allegation (f), the finding should have been limited to Mr Mansoor and Miss Ruparalia, since that was the case advanced under this allegation. The Tribunal erred by finding in addition that Mr Asgar, Mr Bazeer and Mr Kapila could not properly be described as a partners and did not perform any effective role as supervising solicitors.

50. In the case of allegation (j), in the light of the way the case was presented by Mr Williams at the Tribunal hearing and the amendment that is said to have been made to the allegation, the finding should have been limited to a simple finding of a Rule breach rather than a finding of conduct unbefitting.

51. Subject to those two points, the challenge to the Tribunal's findings must, in my view, fail. The findings were properly opened to the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before it.

52. Mr Butt's submissions in relation to allegations (a) to (c) do not begin to show any error in the Tribunal's assessment. On the central issues of supervision and partnership, his submissions fail to face up to the actual evidence that was before the Tribunal, including evidence from Mr Veeravagu, Mr Mansoor and Miss Ruparalia. The Tribunal was plainly entitled, on that evidence, to reach the adverse conclusions it did. It was also entitled to take the view that the firm was engaged in the conduct of litigation. Those findings meant that Mr Butt, as a registered foreign lawyer, could not fulfil the role of a solicitor qualified to supervise for the purposes of Rule 13.

53. Nothing put forward by Mr Butt causes me to doubt the correctness of the findings on those matters or in respect of allegations (g) to (i). The submissions on allegation (j) simply miss the point. His liability to pay indemnity insurance and the proper amount of such insurance are not the subject of decision under appeal and are not matters for this court. That there was a short delay in meeting the requirement in respect of indemnity cover under the Rules does not appear to have been in dispute and was, in any event, a finding open to the Tribunal.

54. I therefore turn to consider whether the sanction imposed was excessive as alleged. It was of course a sanction imposed for the totality of the misconduct found by the Tribunal, but within that misconduct some elements were plainly much more serious than others. The delay in obtaining indemnity insurance, allegation (j), was a relatively minor matter. The amount of the premium is irrelevant and I would specifically reject the argument that it meant in some way that Mr Butt had been punished already.

55. The subject of allegation (a) was a single occasion a long time ago, and there was reasonable mitigation in respect of it. So too allegation (b) concerned a single case a long time ago, though one should not underestimate the seriousness of providing a poor standard of service in a child care case.

56. As to allegation (c), it is perhaps surprising that The Law Society relied upon the point about the use of "RFL" in the letterhead, when they had raised no concern about it at the time. The description of the firm as experts in matrimonial litigation, and one might add as experts in Welfare, Criminal and Civil litigation, was more serious given its tendency to mislead the public, even if in practice the firm did not carry out any significant amount of work in fields other than immigration. None of those matters alone or cumulatively would, in my view, have justified the sanction of removal from the Register. It is different when one comes to consider the other adverse findings.

57. The lack of adequate supervision was a very serious matter; proper supervision is vital for the protection of the public. As Mr Justice Burton pointed out to Mr Butt in the course of argument, anything could have gone wrong in the absence of adequate supervision. The steps taken to create the appearance of compliance, by naming solicitors as partners when in fact they they were not partners nor did they perform the role of partners or provide supervision, add to the seriousness of the matter.

58. I note that Mr Butt takes issue with the Tribunal's statement in paragraph 45 of its decision, that apparent compliance when there was no actual compliance was, in itself, a dishonest approach. He contrasts this with what was said orally by the Chairman of the Tribunal when announcing the decision at the end of the hearing, namely that it was not alleged that Mr Butt had acted dishonestly and the Tribunal did not so find. Mr Butt clearly thought he was acting for the best and the Tribunal did not disbelieve him, but it did question his fitness to provide high quality legal service in conformity with regulatory rules.

59. I am content to deal with the matter on the basis on which it was put by the Chairman at the end of the hearing. Dishonesty was not alleged and did not need to be proved. The fact that even out of confusion and misunderstanding Mr Butt could have acted in the way he did gives cause enough for concern. What happened in relation to clients' funds and accountants' reports reinforces that concern; again, no dishonesty was alleged, but in the absence of proper systems and reports there was a risk that things could go badly wrong.

60. Therefore, in my judgment, the Tribunal was right to be troubled about Mr Butt's failure to grasp the obligations and duties placed on those who practice as registered foreign lawyers. The sanction imposed was an entirely proper one for the protection of the public and the maintainance of the good reputation of the profession. The two points I have identified where the Tribunal, in my judgment, went too far in its findings of fact do not in any way undermine that conclusion.

61. Therefore, subject to those two points of detail I have raised concerning the findings of fact, I would dismiss this appeal.

62. MR JUSTICE BURTON: I agree and have nothing to add.

63. MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW: As do I.

64. MR WILLIAMS: My Lords, I would like to make an application for costs on behalf of The Law Society. There is already an order for costs made by the SDT for detailed assessment and, as there will have to be a detailed assessment, that would be the order I invite this court to make.

65. In making the application, I can say that The Law Society is obviously aware of Mr Butt's financial situation and that will be taken into account when the decision is reached as to how to proceed but I must, my Lords, apply for the order.

66. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: What do you say about that, Mr Butt? You will know that the normal rule is that if you bring an appeal and lose it, you have to pay the other side's costs.

67. MR BUTT: I am getting income support and as my legal reputation is damaged by what is done, I can simply say it is too much for me. I should never have been applied for anything. I say with all due respect we were working and all that but the evidence (inaudible) in that regard is not given. Any consultation in issue, your Lordship rules the same. I am not in a position financially; I am in a very difficult situation and work only to pay and to not get it off the State. Mr Kapila died in front of me, he was crying and did not have the advantage of sending the bill to all of them and all that; there is no excuse in The Law Society about these things and it was only on that in the hospital ...

68. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: I see.

69. MR BUTT: You allow me to work so that I could get these things. I want to work, I want to pay tax to the Government, I used to pay £15,000 tax to the Government. I have not got a pension, I am retired but they didn't give me any pension, nor my wife. In these circumstances, I had the house and business. I had the problem there also, but the consultant did not pay me for 10 years and then did not let me work in this country. My request is to please give me the licence so I could work. I want to pay off these debts to The Law Society, I want to pay off my right to work. I have only paid £1,000 every month, the order of the Tribunal I pay in respect of that. I am not in a position to do anything now.

70. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: Yes. Thank you.

71. MR BUTT: Very kind of you.

72. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: Mr Butt, we take the view that you must be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal which are to be subject to detailed assessment, if not agreed. You have brought the appeal, it frankly was a hopeless appeal and has been dismissed for the reasons I have given. In this case, there is no reason why we should depart from the normal position, that the loser will pay the winner's costs. Of course, it will be for The Law Society to decide whether, when and to what extent to seek to enforce that order. Is there anything else?

73. MR WILLIAMS: Much obliged.