Lawyer Angus Bucknell, 58, was taken to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.
A Canberra lawyer found to have misled the client he represented during a compensation claim has been publicly reprimanded.
The ACT Law Society brought three charges against 58-year-old Angus Bucknell in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT).
In orders made last June but published this week, acting presidential member Greg Curtin SC ordered Mr Bucknell be publicly reprimanded and suspended his local practising certificate for nine months.
He previously found the three charges proved, which were that the lawyer misled and failed to provide adequate advice to a client, as well as that he failed to diligently progress the client’s claim.
“The conduct in relation to each of those charges amounted to professional misconduct,” he said.
Mr Bucknell acted for the client in a compensation claim after the latter had been injured in a 2018 motor vehicle accident.
Mr Curtin said Mr Bucknell failed to advise his client of the approaching expiration of the claim’s limitation period after negotiations with the Office of the Nominal Defendant (OND) effectively came to an end in late 2020.
The lawyer did nothing to protect his client’s rights between then and the expiration of the limitation period in January 2021, then failed to tell his client the limitation period had expired.
“Even if he genuinely held the view that the limitation period may not have expired, he stood by and did nothing to protect [the client’s] rights consistently with that view,” Mr Curtin said.
“Rather, on 15 September 2021 [Mr Bucknell] dishonestly told his client that there was an offer from the OND available for acceptance.
“He continued that dishonesty by attempting to engage the OND in settlement negotiations all the while knowing that the limitation period had expired.”
In September 2022, when the OND told Mr Bucknell his client’s claim was statute barred, the lawyer did not pass this on to his client.
Mr Curtin said the lawyer had done little to explain his conduct and the Law Society claimed it was extremely serious, partly as it allegedly involved the serious neglect of the client’s matter as well as lying to the client. Mr Curtin accepted these submissions.
“The misconduct was generally serious and the dishonesty toward his client was very serious,” he said.
Mr Bucknell, who was admitted as a legal practitioner in 1997 and held senior and consulting roles with various law firms, denied he deliberately mislead or lied to his client.
“I have admitted and acknowledged and continue to acknowledge and reflect upon my failure to [my client] and my failure to the ACT Law Society and under the Legal Profession Act,” he said.
“I am ashamed and remorseful for my conduct and it has weighed heavily on me and will continue to do so.”
Mr Bucknell was ordered to pay the Law Society’s legal costs of the proceedings.
