In a sprawling near-800 paragraph decision NCAT recommends that notorious and inflammatory anti-vax and anti-lockdown “lawyer” Nathan Buckley be removed from the jam roll.

Buckley was found guilty of three counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct and almost a dozen counts of professional misconduct.

He encouraged unlawful behaviour, misled the public through online fundraising campaigns, and used “abusive, derogatory and inflammatory” language in various public statements.

The NCAT procedure was presided over by Deputy President Rashelle Seiden SC, Senior Member Andrew Boxall and Member Emeritus Professor Phillip Foreman.

Buckley was admitted in 2006, and has an extensive history of incendiary and irresponsible behaviour, as covered by this masthead.

During 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, he used Facebook to encourage people not to wear masks and to flaunt stay at home orders.

At issue in these NCAT proceedings was a post made in a private Facebook group where Buckley encouraged readers to provide false business address information to ASIC: “a tip to get around the LGA rules – login to the ASIC portal and change your registered business address and principal place of business address to an LGA that is not restricted.”

The tribunal described Buckley in cross examination as “argumentative” and “avoidant”, with an inability to respond to “very obvious propositions”.

Take the following back-and-forth with Katherine Richardson SC and Kunal Sharma, for the Law Society, about the Facebook post:

Q. You accept that the reference to LGA rules is reference to ‘Local Government Area’ rules in relation to public health orders?

A. It, it could’ve, it could’ve meant anything.

Q. Mr Buckley, you wrote it. Do you accept that that’s what you meant?

A. It was written so, so long ago. It could’ve been anything.

The NCAT held that Buckley was guilty of professional misconduct on the basis that he promoted lawbreaking during a public health emergency, including by encouraging readers of the post to submit false or misleading information to ASIC.

Buckley also made false claims that the decisions of the National Cabinet convened during the pandemic “have no legal effect. You are free to ignore them”.

During cross-examination, it was put to Buckley that “I want to suggest to you that you were thereby encouraging noncompliance with the law?”

He replied: “No, National Cabinet, anything that came from National Cabinet was not law.”

Further, Buckley was found to have run crowdfunding campaigns to finance lawsuits challenging vaccine mandates.

One instance was a campaign to commence High Court proceedings to challenge “unconstitutional orders and directions of State Governments [and to] reopen Australia and end the lockdowns”.

The funds were not used to commence High Court proceedings, and the NCAT found that Buckley had no reasonable grounds to advertise the campaign as such. Most of the funds were spent on a separate set of separate and largely unrelated VCAT proceedings.

Another dimension to the NCAT’s decision were the aspersions cast by Buckley towards the courts, Law Society Council and the legal profession more generally.

This was held to have the potential to rattle confidence in the legal profession.

Buckley said the following in respect of a decision of Justice Robert Beech-Jones, in which Buckley’s firm acted for a party challenging pandemic public health orders:

“So Justice Beech-Jones today said that no one in NSW has any rights. No one has a right to bodily integrity. He basically said it is ok to kill anyone you like. No one has any rights.”

NCAT said that this statement was contrary to his paramount duty to the administration of justice. He was also found to have used social media to encourage members of the public to send prank phone calls to Justice Robert Beech-Jones.

He declared he wanted the judge to have “a very short career as the CJ at CL”.

In a comment in response to his own post about Beech-Jones, Buckley said:

“[if] you want to get somewhere in the legal world you have to give up everything that you ever believed in and wanted when you set out on your journey to be a lawyer. It’s all bullshit. Unless you are in a position of power, you’re not getting anywhere. If you want to be a controlled muppet. Then you’ll go far. If you want to represent people on your own, you’ll get nowhere. As soon as you take on the establishment, the Law Society will be all over you’re arse like a wet dildo.”

After the Law Society advised Buckley that it proposed a suspension of his practising certificate because of this comment, he commenced another crowdfunding campaign to finance a challenge to that decision. He claimed: “they want to silence me for pointing out the truth about Beech-Jones decision. That [Health Minister] Hazzard can make public health orders sentencing unvaccinated people to their death.”

NCAT found that his actions continued to have a misleading effect, and were materially likely to diminish public confidence in the administration of justice.

Dildos frequently played a part in Buckley’s salty exchanges with people on Facebook, along with other unoriginal insults:

In response to the user Francesca Ricci: “keep that dildo pumping up your arsehole”; 

In response to the user Brett McCluskey:

i.   “won’t have to dickhead. Proceedings will commence”; 

ii.   “haven’t grifted 0. Keep sticking that dildo up your arsehole”; 

iii.   “0 fuckwit. I don’t grift”; 

iv.   “take as many screenshots as you want loser”;

v.    “you’re just upset that I booted you”; and

vi.   “go fuck yourself”;

In response to the user Nat Pollard: “go fuck yourself”;

In response to the user Jennifer Zach: “go fuck yourself”;

In response to the user Phil Harvey: “you haven’t been fucked before have you? Go fuck yourself”; and

In response to the user Annie Walker: “just like you hey loser”.”

Ultimately, Buckley’s use of “inflammatory” language was seen as “so contrary to a solicitor’s duty to uphold the administration of justice” that he could not be seen as a fit and proper person.

When assessing what orders should be made in respect of the various findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, NCAT found that Buckley ought to be struck off due to a lack of insight or contrition, and due to his persistent and obstinate misconduct.

The Tribunal did “not consider the possibility of reflection, or, further education”. Despite the passage of time since the height of the pandemic, the bench felt that he failed to appreciate “the magnitude of his departure from the conduct rules”.

Naughty Nathan posed a threat to the public’s confidence and trust in the administration of justice.

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Buckley