By -

A summary of recent NCAT decisions involving solicitors.

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Buckley [2025] NSWCATOD 98

On 29 July 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Council) commenced against Mr Nathan Andrew Buckley.

On 2 May 2023, the Council commenced disciplinary proceedings in the Tribunal against Mr Buckley (First Application), alleging that he had engaged in professional misconduct on the basis of the following:

  1. Mr Buckley made public statements encouraging residents of certain local government areas in New South Wales to breach laws by deliberately providing false information to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for the purpose of avoiding the effect of applicable public health orders, which was contrary to his paramount duty to the administration of justice as required under rule 3 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australia Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) (Conduct Rules) (Ground 1).
  2. Mr Buckley made a public statement encouraging aged care workers to breach laws by not complying with the requirement to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, which was contrary to Mr Buckley’s paramount duty to the administration of justice under rule 3 of the Conduct Rules (Ground 3).
  3. As part of a public discussion concerning Mr Buckley’s campaign to raise funds for litigation (being a discussion concerning the practice of law), Mr Buckley caused to be published on the Facebook platform comments which contained offensive and/or abusive language, and thereby engaged in conduct which, contrary to rule 5 of the Conduct Rules, was likely to a material degree to be prejudicial to, or diminish the public confidence in, the administration of justice and/or bring the legal profession into disrepute (Ground 5).
  4. Mr Buckley made public statements regarding or in connection with the judgment of Beech-Jones CJ in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam Judgment). This was contrary to Mr Buckley’s paramount duty to the administration of justice under rule 3 of the Conduct Rules (Grounds 6 and 8).
  5. Mr Buckley endorsed public comments on the Facebook platform expressing misgivings about the Kassam Judgment and the propriety of the Court, which was contrary to Mr Buckley’s paramount duty to the administration of justice under rule 3 of the Conduct Rules (Ground 10).
  6. As part of raising funds to prosecute proceedings for judicial review of a proposed decision of the Council, Mr Buckley made public statements in connection with the Kassam Judgment and Beech-Jones CJ, which were contrary to Mr Buckley’s paramount duty to the administration of justice under rule 3 of the Conduct Rules (Ground 12).
  7. By engaging in the conduct referred to in Grounds 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 respectively, Mr Buckley acted in manner which, contrary to rule 5 of the Conduct Rules, was likely to a material degree to be prejudicial to, or diminish the public confidence in, the administration of justice and/or bring the legal profession into disrepute (Grounds 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 respectively).

On 18 December 2023, the Council commenced further disciplinary proceedings in the Tribunal against Mr Buckley (Second Application). It alleged that Mr Buckley had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct on the basis that he posted, or caused to be posted, material in relation to various fundraising campaigns, as part of which he engaged in marketing or promotion in connection with himself and/or the law practice known as G & B Lawyers (of which he was a partner), which was false or misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, contrary to rules 36.1.1 and 36.1.2 of the Conduct Rules (Grounds 1 to 4).

Both applications were heard together.

The Council sought orders:

  1. recommending that Mr Buckley’s name be removed from the roll maintained by the Supreme Court of New South Wales pursuant to section 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Roll); and
  2. requiring Mr Buckley to pay the Council’s costs of the proceedings.

The Tribunal found Mr Buckley guilty of:

  1. unsatisfactory professional conduct on the basis of:
    1. Grounds 1 and 2 of the First Application; and
    2. Ground 3 of the Second Application; and
  2. professional misconduct on the basis of:
    1. Grounds 5 to 13 of the First Application; and
    2. Ground 1, and Grounds 1 and 3 considered together, of the Second Application.

The Tribunal made orders:

  1. recommending that Mr Buckley’s name be removed from the Roll; and
  2. requiring Mr Buckley to pay the Council’s costs of the proceedings.

The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Li [2025] NSWCATOD 114

On 28 August 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in proceedings that the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Council) commenced against Ms Zhewen Li pursuant to section 119 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Uniform Law).

The Council sought an order pursuant to s119(1) of the Uniform Law that Ms Li be disqualified indefinitely for the purposes of the Uniform Law on the basis of allegations that Ms Li, while employed by the law practice known as Tahota Law as a bookkeeper:

  1. caused monies to be transferred between the law practice’s office account and trust account without authorisation or entitlement;
  2. deposited monies held in the law practice’s trust account into her own personal accounts without authorisation or entitlement.
  3. failed to record relevant transactions in the law practice’s trust account ledger and, instead, made entries in the trust account ledger that falsely indicated that the monies were deposited into the law practice’s office account; and
  4. made false entries in the law practice’s payroll records.

Section 121 of the Uniform Law provides that a law practice contravenes this subsection if the law practice has a lay associate whom any principal or other legal practitioner associate of the law practice knows to be a disqualified person, or a person who has been convicted of a serious offence, unless the lay associate is approved by the designated local regulatory authority under subsection (2).

The Tribunal:

  1. found Ms Li:
    1. is not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with the practice of law or to be involved in the management of a law practice; and
    2. guilty of conduct that, if she were an Australian legal practitioner, would have constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
  2. disqualified Ms Li for the purposes of the Uniform Law indefinitely.

Application of Gribble under s 121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) [2025] NSWCATOD 125

On 10 September 2025, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) published its decision in proceedings that Mr Jacob Gribble commenced pursuant to s121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (Uniform Law). Mr Gribble commenced the proceedings to seek an order approving him to be engaged as a lay associate by law practices.

Section 121 of the Uniform Law provides that a law practice contravenes this subsection if the law practice has a lay associate whom any principal or other legal practitioner associate of the law practice knows to be a disqualified person, or a person who has been convicted of a serious offence, unless the lay associate is approved by the designated local regulatory authority under subsection (2).

The Tribunal made orders approving Mr Gribble to be a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice subject to the following conditions:

  1. The approval has effect from the date that it is granted until the date that is 24 months from the date that it is granted.
  2. Whilst acting as a lay associate, Mr Gribble:
    1. must be supervised by an Australian lawyer who holds a current practising certificate; and
    2. if the supervising Australian lawyer is a solicitor, may be supervised by that solicitor only if the solicitor holds a current practising certificate which authorises the holder to supervise the work of others.
  3. In addition to his obligations under s 122(1) of the Uniform Law to inform the law practice of his convictions prior to becoming a lay associate, Mr Gribble must, prior to becoming a lay associate, provide both the principal of any law practice in which he works and any legal practitioner directly responsible for his supervision a copy of the Tribunal’s written reasons for decision in these proceedings.
  4. Mr Gribble must provide proof of compliance with the conditions referred to in subparagraphs 2 and 3 above to:
    1. in the case of his engagement with a solicitor, the Director, Legal Regulation of the Law Society of New South Wales; and
    2. in the case of his engagement with a barrister, the Director, Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association, within seven days of becoming a lay associate of any New South Wales law practice.
  1. Mr Gribble must notify the Director, Legal Regulation of the Law Society of New South Wales, and the Director, Professional Conduct of the New South Wales Bar Association, of the occurrence of any future matter or event which might adversely affect his suitability to be a lay associate (including any criminal charges brought against him) within seven days of its occurrence.