NSW solicitor recommended for strike-off after misleading fundraising marketing — Buckley NSWCATOD 98
In Council of the Law Society of NSW v Buckley [2025] NSWCATOD 98, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal recommended that the name of solicitor Nathan Andrew Buckley, partner at G & B Lawyers, be removed from the roll. The decision was published on 29 July 2025. The Tribunal found that fundraising-campaign material run alongside vaccine-mandate litigation was false, misleading or deceptive, contrary to rules 36.1.1 and 36.1.2 of the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules. It is a hard-line application of the conduct rule that governs solicitor advertising.
- LPUL
- Law
The proceedings were brought by the Council of the Law Society of NSW. The Tribunal panel — Deputy President Rashelle Seiden SC, Senior Member Andrew Boxall and General Member Emeritus Professor Philip Foreman AM — published reasons on 29 July 2025, according to the Law Society Journal's summary of the decision.
The marketing finding centred on fundraising campaigns Mr Buckley and G & B Lawyers ran alongside COVID-19 vaccine-mandate litigation, including social-media content. The Council alleged the material was marketing or promotion in connection with the solicitor and the firm. It was found to be false, misleading or deceptive — contrary to rules 36.1.1 and 36.1.2 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015.
Rule 36 governs solicitor advertising. Rule 36.1 prohibits advertising a service in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive, offensive, or prohibited by law. The Tribunal also found Mr Buckley had made public statements encouraging breaches of public-health law and posted abusive comments on Facebook in the course of fundraising. The conduct, taken together, was characterised as contrary to a solicitor's duty to uphold the administration of justice. He was found not to be a fit and proper person to remain on the roll.
The Tribunal recommended that Mr Buckley's name be removed from the roll under section 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), and ordered him to pay the Council's costs. NCAT recommends; the Supreme Court of NSW formally executes the removal.
Most law-firm marketing reviews look at testimonials and case-outcome claims. Buckley is a reminder that rule 36.1.1 reads broadly. Fundraising language, campaign rhetoric, social posts that build the firm's profile around live litigation — all of it is marketing under the rule. All of it is the regulator's reading surface.
“Treat every public-facing surface a solicitor or firm operates as rule 36.1.1 territory — fundraising pages, social posts, podcast appearances, campaign copy. The test is not whether it sells a service. The test is whether it is marketing or promotion in connection with a solicitor that is liable to mislead. Build the review pattern around that reading, not the testimonial check most generalists run.”
One change in many. Brief us with your funnel question.