A DOCTOR who wrote to a school offering his services to pupils yesterday challenged a decision of the Medical Council which found him guilty of professional misconduct. The High Court heard that Dr Li Sum-wo wrote the letter in March 1987 to the Baptist Rainbow Primary School at Chuk Yuen South estate, Kowloon, asking to be put on the panel of doctors serving the school in a Government subvented school medical scheme ashis new clinic was nearby. A doctor already serving the school, Dr David Chow, was shown the letter and complained to the Medical Council that Dr Li was advertising. But Mr Justice Mayo heard that Dr Li had earlier discussed the matter with Dr Chow, who was keen for him to take over his place on the panel, and he had seen the headmaster, Mr Leung Piu-chung, who suggested he should write. In April 1989, Dr Chow wrote to the Medical Council saying he wanted to withdraw his complaint as he now recollected Dr Li approached the school at his suggestion. Mr Leung confirmed that at an earlier meeting he had suggested Dr Li write to the school. But the council decided to continue its inquiry into whether Dr Li had advertised and canvassed, contrary to professional rules, and a hearing went ahead in April 1990. Dr Li was cleared of canvassing, but was found guilty of advertising. However, he received the most lenient penalty that could be imposed - a warning letter and no publication in the Government Gazette. An appeal to the Court of Appeal is still pending. Yesterday, in a judicial review of the council's finding, Mr Philip Dykes, for Dr Li, said the council should not have proceeded after Dr Chow withdrew his complaint. He said there was also a procedural irregularity because Crown counsel was appointed to prosecute before Dr Chow failed to show up at the inquiry. The rules say the complainant should prosecute the case, and if he fails to appear Crown counsel may be appointed. In this case, Mr Dykes said, Crown counsel appeared before they knew Dr Chow would not turn up. He also complained that the council had failed to give reasons for finding Dr Li guilty which made it difficult for him to formulate grounds of appeal. Mr John McNamara, appearing for the Medical Council, will reply today.