Controversial solicitor Nathan Buckley of “wet dildo” infamy could have his name struck off for a number of offensive social media posts, including a suggestion a judge ruled “no one has any rights” and comments that told users to “go f--k yourself”.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recommended that Nathan Andrew Buckley’s name be removed from the roll for his conduct on social media and for fundraising campaigns that were found to be “likely to mislead or deceive readers”.
Deputy president Rashelle Seiden SC, senior member Andrew Boxall, and general member Emeritus Professor Philip Foreman AM said Buckley’s conduct was “so contrary to a solicitor’s duty to uphold the administration of justice” and he was not a fit and proper person.
The bench also specifically noted Buckley’s inability to accept “very obvious propositions” put to him and a failure to appreciate the gravity of his misconduct was “relevant to the possibility it will recur, and the need to protect the public from that recurrence”.
“The respondent has consistently attempted to diminish the severity of his misconduct and fails to appreciate how grave a departure his conduct was from the standards expected of a solicitor. While the respondent is remorseful, he cannot be said to truly ‘understand the error of his ways’,” Seiden, Boxall and Foreman said.
In October 2021, Buckley posted on a Twitter (now X) account about a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of NSW’s Justice Robert Beech-Jones. Buckley’s firm had represented a party that disputed certain aspects of public health orders amid the pandemic.
Buckley wrote: “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.”
The tribunal said Buckley should have known or become aware of the judgment “and not made public statements so clearly mischaracterising it”. It added that Buckley was acting contrary “to his paramount obligation to the court and administration of justice”.
In response to comments, Buckley wrote the judgment meant “pedos [sic] have no rights”, and he told one social media user they could inject heroin into people “as long as it’s done under a public health order”.
When one user asked for Justice Beech-Jones’ number to “prank him 24/7”, Buckley responded: “It’s on the website.” He also told another user he hoped Justice Beech-Jones had a “very short career”.
There was a further comment that suggested lawyers would “go far” in the profession if they wanted to be a “controlled muppet”.
He then added: “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 your arse like a wet dildo.”
Buckley made an apology approximately a year and a half after the first post, but he has nevertheless done nothing to indicate he has insight into the “severity of his wrongful conduct” in light of his obligations.
“The tribunal considers that, while the email demonstrates embarrassment and contrition on the part of the respondent, it does little to persuade the tribunal that the respondent truly understands all the reasons why his conduct was wrong,” the bench said.
After the Council of the NSW Law Society had advised him that it had proposed suspending his practising certificate, Buckley started a fundraising page that stated the purpose was to challenge the decision.
On the page, Buckley wrote: “They want to silence me for pointing out the truth about Beech-Jones decision. That Hazzard can make public health orders sentencing unvaccinated people to their death.”
The tribunal said Buckley’s position as a lawyer “exacerbates the misleading nature” of his comments, particularly because he would be expected “to stay within the bounds of fairness and reason when criticising a judgment of the Supreme Court”.
“The respondent’s status as a legal practitioner cloaked the comment with legitimacy. The conduct was materially likely to prejudice the administration of justice and diminish public confidence in the administration of justice,” Seiden, Boxall, and Foreman said.
The tribunal found that if disappointed in legal practice or if a result was contrary to views he “passionately and vehemently held”, it was not satisfied that Buckley would not again express frustration “in a way that would risk diminishing public confidence in the administration of justice or bring the legal profession into disrepute”.
In response to a Facebook post that challenged a campaign Buckley was intending to raise funds for, Buckley made a series of offensive and abusive comments, including telling one user to “go f--k yourself” and telling another to “keep sticking that dildo up your a------e”.
Seiden, Boxall, and Foreman were satisfied that the comments were likely to bring the profession into disrepute and had the capacity to diminish public confidence in the administration of justice.
Buckley was also found to have made misrepresentations on two fundraising pages to commence legal proceedings.
The case is: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Buckley [2025] NSWCATOD 98
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
