By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to disbar attorney Craig Butler after he admitted to misappropriating more than $862,000 in funds belonging to AML Foods Limited.

The appeal followed a ruling by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Bahamas Bar Council in July 2024 ordering that Mr Butler be struck from the Roll of Counsel and Attorneys for professional misconduct.

The case centres on allegations by AML Foods that Mr Butler misappropriated $862,287.43 entrusted to him during a property purchase transaction.

The ruling said Mr Butler admitted his guilt before the Tribunal, but asked it to hear submissions on what punishment should be imposed.

The court noted that the company had already obtained a judgment against him for the money, but had not recovered any of the funds.

As such, the Tribunal considered several factors before deciding to disbar him, including the seriousness of the breach, the importance of protecting client funds, the need to deter similar conduct and the wider impact on the company and its shareholders.

"The relationship between attorney and client is one fundamentally of trust, particularly where client funds are concerned,” the Tribunal said in the original ruling.

“It is understood that the client’s monies are sacrosanct and should not be used by the Attorney for any purpose other than what they were provided for. The client’s monies are certainly not to be used for the Attorney’s purposes, no matter the ‘dire needs’ or circumstances in which the attorney may find himself.”

The Tribunal also said: “The punishment for such conduct must be such that it will deter others from engaging in such conduct. The conduct of the Respondent is not conduct befitting of counsel and attorney, in particular as a senior member of The Bahamas Bar.”

The Court of Appeal agreed with that position and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision. Mr Butler, however, argued that disbarment was too harsh because there had been no finding that he acted dishonestly.

Still, the court rejected that argument, saying disbarment is not limited only to cases involving dishonesty.

The court referred to previous rulings supporting the disbarment of attorneys where their conduct falls below the standards of integrity and trust expected in the legal profession.

The court also stressed that protecting public confidence in the legal profession is one of the most important responsibilities of the Tribunal.

Mr Butler argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including his health issues, financial capacity and efforts to repay the money.

However, the court found that the Tribunal did consider those issues and noted that, more than eight years after the funds were misappropriated, AML Foods still had not recovered any money.

The judgment also noted that references to Mr Butler’s health problems before the Tribunal were brief and unsupported by evidence.

During the appeal, Mr Butler attempted to introduce additional evidence, including documents relating to property valuations and his health, however, the court refused to admit the material, ruling that most of the documents could have been presented earlier before the Tribunal.

The appeal process was also delayed several times because of procedural issues, including problems with the filing of the Record of Appeal and submissions. The court said Mr Butler, who represented himself during the appeal, was given extensions and opportunities to correct the issues.

The judges also rejected Mr Butler’s complaints that the Tribunal acted unfairly or inconsistently when compared with other disciplinary cases involving attorneys. The court said the examples he relied on either could not be verified or were materially different from his own case.

The court further dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and allegations against counsel for the Bar Council, calling those submissions “wholly unmeritorious”.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Tribunal acted fairly and properly exercised its powers under the Legal Profession Act, and ordered Mr Butler to pay the costs of the appeal.