Lawyers are given wide latitude to advocate for their clients but, fortunately, there are limits. Our professional ethics require some adherence, some “buy-in,” to widely agreed-upon truths. None of us want to spend tax-payer money, not to speak of “person hours” arguing dead-end arguments repeatedly ad infinitum. Life is too short. (Eternity is too short, for that matter.)
Mr. Butler appears to have donned the mantle of a messianic advocate for the down-trodden though critics have suggested that he was fleecing the very unfortunate debtors that he purported to be advocating on behalf of (taking up-front payments in exchange for his making losing arguments for people who need every dollar they have).
The bottom line for Mr. Butler is that one might get away with arguing that 2+2=5 once before one court, but when a lawyer is corrected and warned not to make such patently unsound arguments again, and the lawyer does so again (and again, and again), the outcome is predictable.