Law Society’s puts anti-lockdown lawyer on notice … Conduct rules in play … Bring it on … Swollen crowdfunded war chest … Anti-Vac … Threats and tirades … Calling on the AFP to prosecute the Premier of Victoria for “treason” … “Nuremberg law” … Alan Zheng reports on the cult of celebrity
In July, Buckley shot to global recognition after congratulating Victorians for refusing COVID-19 testing and advising Victorians not to obey mask laws at the peak of the state’s second wave.
The G&B Facebook page proclaimed:
“Free legal advice to all Victorians. Don’t wear a mask. Get a $200 fine then elect to have it determined in court. Every single one of you 6.359 million Victorians can challenge the fines in court. The Victorian government won’t fight you in court. It is far too expensive for them to do so.”
That post must have flooded the inboxes at 170 Phillip Street because Buckley subsequently pulled the post at the request of the Law Society and clarified that it “was not the provision of legal advice”, only an expression of “personal political beliefs” and protected by the “implied freedom of political communication”.
Buckley has been busy since then, delivering sermons from lofty peaks to the tinfoil hat-wearing brigade but originality in ideas has been lacking.
More recently Buckley again encouraged Victorians to challenge COVID-19 restrictions in Victoria – this time, in more measured terms.
“Go to Freedom Day protests around Australia. If you are fined, go to court and assert your rights. I am here to help you.”
The Law Society, not content to twiddle its disciplinary thumbs, mustered the cavalry.
In a September 1 letter from Nadya Haddad, the deputy director of investigations at the society’s professional standards department, Naughty Nathan was put on notice of a slew of possible breaches to the conduct rules and the possibility that he may not be fit and proper.
Buckley, in trademark form, swiftly published the letter on the G&B Lawyers Facebook page, leading the Law Society to write the following day requesting Buckley de-identify persons named in the complaint “as soon as possible. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated”.
Buckley was prompt in refusing to follow the Law Society’s request.
“It is in the public interest that their names be disclosed to ensure that I get procedural fairness in any action that you might commence against me, ” he fired back.
In its letter, the Law Society referred to the July Facebook post and alleged Buckley made “public statements which may have encouraged breaches of the law and the contesting of matters in court without a proper basis, potentially overloading the court system, contrary to your paramount duty to the administration of justice”.
The Law Society also suggested that the July Facebook post might constitute marketing of his law practice in a misleading or deceptive manner.
Buckley has denied all the allegations, writing to the Law Society:
“I deny all allegations made in your letter. I have done nothing wrong. I have not breached anything in the Conduct Rules. The complaint is baseless, without merit and must be thrown out. Accordingly, I will not be providing you with further information. I also will not be giving you any undertaking. You have no basis whatsoever to demand such an undertaking from me. If you decide to take any further action against me, I intend to call my now in excess of 8,000 followers on Facebook to give evidence in my support as to why I am a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.”
G&B Lawyers also took to Twitter:
His Facebook entourage smartly fell into line. One commenter wrote:
“Why didn’t they come after dan andrews when he was breaching the constitution, nuremberg law, human rights charter and common law?? All corrupt. But I will call them tomorrow and have my 2 cents of info for them.”
Spare a thought for the Law Society’s reception desk.
By September 8, Buckley was back to the Law Society wanting details of the complaint process and a definition of “fit and proper”.
His new fundraiser against a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination has rallied $84,000 in donations of its $10,000,000 target.
The multi-million dollar figure comprises Buckley’s estimate for the costs of litigation in “6 states, 2 territories, the Commonwealth and our legal team plus insurance for a costs order if we lose”.
That may all be for nothing, however, as the federal government has yet to make a final call on whether the vaccine will be mandatory.
That fundraiser has since found a new home on Fundly, raising $21,000 so far.
Some donors have skipped these sites altogether and made direct transfers into Buckley’s bank account after he shared his bank details and invited donations to fund his constitutional challenge against South Australia’s “No Jab, No Play” laws.
The donations must have been fruitful because Buckley later announced that Julian Burnside AO QC had accepted the brief to act for the applicant in the challenge.
Behind the scenes, Buckley has also been locked in heated correspondence with various other legal people, including Sharna Clemmett of Greenway Chambers and a lawyer of the same name – Nathan Buckley of Optic Lawyers.
The Law Society has written that this correspondence from Naughty Nathan’s “may have been threatening, abusive and/or discourteous“.
If found to be the case, that wouldn’t be his first trip round the block. He was previously reprimanded for the same thing in January this year.
Clemmett is the administrator of the Lawyer Mums Australia Facebook group where a post describing Buckley was published.
Buckley contacted Clemmett, accusing the poster, in incensed terms, of defaming him and professional misconduct:
“So if you want to avoid an absolute shit storm and the destruction of many careers of your members, you should reach out to all offenders and tell them that I am coming for them unless they lodge a formal withdrawal of their complaints.”
Nathan Buckley of Optic Lawyers told the Smellograph in mid-August that his business had been severely affected by negative Google reviews and angry callers.
“He [Nathan Buckley of G&B lawyers] is dragging my name down … he is doing everything I am against … I can’t afford to have my name ruined.”
Beyond the whirlwind of misconduct allegations against him, Naughty Nathan’ has maintained the outrage.
His now-deactivated LinkedIn account has been the scene of a rampage through various public conversation threads.
He has described people variously as, “inbred fuckhead … inbred dinosaur [and] scumbag”.
It would seem Buckley’s concerns towards inbreeding are matched only by his anti-vaccination rhetoric (which he describes as “pro choice”).
In one comment, he wrote:
“I actually couldn’t give a shit about how great you think you are. But I wanted to post this to clog your page and make you click on your feed like a junkie drug addict. Cheers, Nathan.”
He has continued to spout all manner of views and opposition against the COVID-19 lockdown in Victoria on the G&B Facebook page, reaping a mixture of ridicule, fame and Facebook likes.
In a recent post, G&B Lawyers called for an Australian Federal Police investigation into Daniel Andrews “for treason and treachery”, for signing Victoria onto the Chinese Belt and Road initiative “without Commonwealth approval” and “in breach of the national security interests of Australia”.
The increased media attention has brought Buckley more than a healthy amount of litigation financing. His name now stands with particular repute in the minds of those keen to litigate the COVID-19 lockdown.
The Courier Mail named Buckley among a motley crew of “tinfoil-hat-wearing” people – including fish ‘n’ chip connoisseur Pauline Hanson and disgraced TV personality Pete Evans – who are all using “their cult of celebrity” to combat COVID-19 measures in Australia.
That’s not all, Buckley’s newfound fame appears to have attracted graduating law students, confronting a post-COVID legal landscape.
One student, a graduate of the University of the Sunshine Coast, asked Buckley in a Facebook comment whether G&B lawyers were “hiring any paralegals, junior lawyers, or PLT positions in near future?”
“Yes,” came Buckley’s answer, “please email your CV and academic transcript.”
Perhaps a penchant for the offensive and conspiratorial might be more useful than an academic transcript.