- Lawyer. Shall abide by the traditions and ethics of the legal profession. His behaviour towards the judiciary. Shall be in a manner that respects the dignity of the judiciary. Shall avoid any matter that hinders the hearing of cases or obstructs the course of justice. The basis therefor? Article 35 of Federal Law No. 13 of 1991 on the Regulation of the Legal Profession.

- The Disciplinary Board’s decision to hold the appellant disciplinary accountable for violating the text of Article 35 of the aforementioned law. By breaching his professional obligations. Application of the correct rule of law.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the appealed decision and all other documents - the judge / ........ has issued on 9/9/2018, a record wherein he stated that during the hearing of the criminal case No. 6738 of 2017, Penal – Ajman, upon calling on the accused, the appellant lawyer came and started screaming, "Why are my client is foot tied?" objecting to the police procedures, which constituted a breach of the court’s order and a violation of Article 163 of the Criminal Procedure Law and Article 47 of the Law of the Legal Profession. Whereas, upon the appellant’s interrogation during the Public Prosecution’s investigations, he denied having raised his voice at the judge or the prosecution and having committed an act that breached the session’s order and stated that he attended with his client (the accused held in custody and that upon calling on him, he appeared before the court, tied with iron cuffs, therefore, he requested the judge (the complainant) to apply the legal article prohibiting the appearance of the accused before the court tied with iron cuffs.

Whereas, the Public Prosecution instituted the case and referred the appellant to the Lawyers Disciplinary Board because he did not adhere to the ethics of the legal profession when he did not behave in a manner befitting the dignity of the judiciary, in a criminal case pending before the court, by raising his hands, screaming and causing chaos in the session, which hindered the adjudication of the judicial proceedings and obstructed the course of justice, thus, his behaviour constitutes a misdemeanour as per the provisions of Articles 35/2, 47 of Federal Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Regulation of the Legal Profession and its amendments, and in its session held on 17/4/2019, the Disciplinary Board ruled to punish the appellant by serving a warning letter on him, to draw his attention to the aforesaid act and to request him not to repeat this violation in the future.

The appellant was not satisfied with this decision, therefore, he filed an appeal against it, wherein he requested its acceptance in form, and in the merits, the cancellation of the appealed judgment and his acquittal, on the grounds that the appealed decision violated the law and erred in its application and breached the right of defence, since he did not breach his professional obligations and did not hinder the course of proceedings and that he requested the court to observe the provisions of Article 164 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which stipulates that the accused shall be brought before the court without cuffs, and not to accept the lawsuit, on the grounds that it violates the text of Article 46 of the Law on the Regulation of the Legal Profession that requires the issuance of independent minutes, stating the violation and its referral to the Public Prosecution, and that the complaint was filed after the time-limit prescribed therefor, and due to the procrastination in reporting and the failure to respond to his defence to call the defence witnesses and review the court's cameras.

Whereas, on 19/5/2019, the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of opinion, whereby it deemed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the appealed decision.

In the pleading session, the appellant attended, denied the charge against him and requested his acquittal. The present date's session was set for the pronouncement of the judgment.

Whereas, on the merits, it is prescribed - as per the provisions of Article 35 of Federal Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Regulation of the Legal Profession - that the lawyer may not carry out any work contrary to the ethics or traditions of the legal profession and he shall behave towards judges in a manner respecting the dignity of the judiciary and avoid anything that would hinder the adjudication of cases or obstruct the course of justice.