Simon Buckingham, Lawyer, vs. Jacqueline Sperling, Liar


I have noted previously [link] that Jacqueline Sperling tried (and continues to try) to ruin the life of lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, for having the temerity to request she stop harassing and defaming a rape victim in her spare time. But a few weeks ago, I realised that there was another player that I had not paid much attention to – the lawyer hired after Sperling went off the deep end. His name is Simon Buckingham, and he is a lawyer at Buckingham Law.

Before I wrote this, I did a quick google search. I came up with this.

Smith-Voorkamp was filmed by a television crew at a court sitting in the Christchurch Police Station watch house, and was described as “the face of looting”, before family revealed his mental disability.

Lawyer Simon Buckingham earlier said on the night of his arrest, Smith-Voorkamp was beaten by two officers and taunted by New Zealand Army personnel.

At his first appearance in court, Smith-Voorkamp had a black eye.

I think it speaks volumes about a man when he will stand up for someone the entire country has judged, at a time when the country is not interested in listening to facts that don’t fit. That’s a level of integrity that is lacking in this country. It’s a level of integrity that’s lacking in any country, at any time.

But it seems that Simon Buckingham has it.

Well, thanks to Jackie’s habit of posting bits on the internet, we now know just how nice a guy he is.

See, when he was handed this big fat mess, he thought he’d sit down and have a chat over a cup of coffee*.

Clearly a good idea in normal circumstances, but when Jackie Sperling is involved… well, let’s just say there’s a reason why the moniker “LMC” stuck so quickly even though I stopped using it here.

Here’s what she says about it.

Being a Christian – i found Mr. Buckingham bringing up my faith in God in a conversation regarding a threat of legal proceedings about to be brought against me to be using my faith in God against me. This came across as very unprofessional, insulting, and passive aggressive. I took this as a threat to my faith and that people would not believe that i am a Christian if i did not do whatever Mr Buckingham wanted, or agree to whatever he wanted. It is my view that Mr. Buckingham attempted to use my religious beliefs against me in order to gain a favourable resolution for his clients.

Mr Buckingham has ignored the fact that he sent me a separate letter asking me out for coffee to discuss what i should and shouldn’t be able to write about on my blog. A lawyer asking someone out that he has been hired to take to court is unprofessional and amounts to misconduct.

Let’s break this down.

She considered bringing up her own, publically professed faith:

  • “very unprofessional”
  • “insulting”
  • “passive aggressive”
  • “a threat to my faith”
  • a way of black-mailing her into doing Simon’s every whim
  • a way of getting “favourable resolution for his clients”

Isn’t it horrible that a lawyer would try and get a favourable resolution for his clients? Or maybe that’s his job.

Isn’t it horrible that he’s suggesting she obeys the law as he requests? Or maybe she should obey the law regardless of who’s asking.

Isn’t it horrible that he made a threat to her faith? Except he didn’t ask (let alone demand) she abandon it, he asked her to embrace it by acting consistently with it.


In a twist of irony, her ramblings are partially correct – the way she has acted towards Mr Buckingham has meant a lot of Christians are forced to severely doubt her claimed faith in Christ. But that is for her to live with – I am not going to dwell on the point today.

Part of her reaction to the case as a whole was to place a complaint before the Law Society regarding the conduct of all the lawyers involved. Reading between the lines, it seems that these complaints boil down to her trying to re-litigate the case before the law society, as well as complaining that lawyers did what lawyers do.

For example, staying up late preparing papers for court the next day. Apparently, sending emails in the middle of the night is a serious offence against humanity or something.

Anyway, after she placed her complaint, he replied to it, and she then blogged on that reply and made some denials.

You can read that post here.

It’s a silly post. Sperling has made a habit of posting edited material, but usually it’s tricky to tell it is edited. But in this case, she’s posted “Denial on Point x”, while the reader is left wondering what she is denying.

She has also posted various papers, which as a non-lawyer I’m guessing are not for public consumption (Law Society complaints are private). This is a long standing habit of hers, and I have no doubt that one day soon it’s going to bite her in the backside very, very hard. (Oh look, some of the emails actually state that they’re privileged.)

But one can guess what her complaints are, by her replies.

Points 1 & 2 appear to be complaints that he said he was acting when he wasn’t, and had filed proceedings when he hadn’t. Given the known integrity and legal knowledge of both parties, I’d say with some confidence she’s at best flogging a dead horse based because she doesn’t understand some details, and at worst she’s making the entire thing up.

Regardless, it strikes me as ridiculously pedantic even if is true.

Points 3 is dealt with above. Somehow I don’t think the law society is going to care that someone’s faith was mentioned by a lawyer.

Point 4, pretty much as points 1 & 2 but with the added bonus that she was upset(!!) around exams(!!) and scared(!!) she might actually be held to account by the courts.

Point 5, she argues that use of the “royal we” is intended to intimidate. Apparently, she’s intimidated by false plurals. I’m sure this will be immediately transferred to the “Grammar Police” subsection of the law society’s complaints board. I hear their powers are impressive, including “raising of the eyebrow” and “brisk tutting”.

Point 6 & 7, apparently a criminal complaint was put on the table at one point. She claims that this is really bad, because at the time she was pretending to offer a settlement. (Sadly, the police didn’t act.)

Point 8, she argues that “Their prolific amount of emails to me was distressing and for someone who has no idea regarding legal matters it was all consuming.” Apparently it’s really evil for a lawyer to email someone who’s being sued but refuses to hire a lawyer.

She concludes by whining that she won so she should get her way in all things, and that he tried to get her kicked off the internet. By the latter she means that he took her to court to stop her on-line bullying campaign.

Yes, she is seriously stating to the Law Society that it is professional misconduct for a Lawyer to be involved in a lawsuit.

Finally, she tries to gloss over the fact she tried to use the use this professional complaint to leverage her position during the period she pretended to offer a settlement.

In short, her complaint appears to be an abuse of the professional complaints process.

If anything, her own material shows Simon Buckingham to be exactly what I stated he was at first – a man of immense integrity, who has done nothing other than oppose one of this countries nastiest on-line bullies.

I rest my case.

* I’ve noticed that many people take the assumption that, because this situation blew up, the lawyers involved were somehow heavy handed and did not take all reasonable steps to try and sort it out, outside of the court room. I hope this post helps some people understand that this is not the case, and that Sperling’s usual response towards friendly offers of mediation was to viciously attack. Perhaps sometime I’ll be able to write a post examining that aspect more closely  – we’ll see.


This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, lawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as The Narrative – the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.


  1. Good article, and in my experience that’s a great assessment of Mr Buckingham’s integrity. Well played, Simon.

  2. Thank you so much. Whilst I can speak of what is happening as I have not renewed my practising certificate this year (and am considering getting out of law based upon this sort of case), I still will not comment, as I feel that the Law Society will consider the matter. I will say this much though:

    1. I will fight for my clients in their best interests. Usually that is resolution at the start of any matter.

    2. My clients in this matter are people of integrity who have gone on to become friends, and I am proud to consider them friends.

    3. The New Zealand Law Society takes all complaints very seriously and investigates them fully. They do not stick up for lawyers lightly, and they should not do so.

    4. If I have caused offence to anyone, I am sorry. However, I will do what I know to be right, and stand by what I have done.

    5. Stand up to the bullies, whoever they are, and however they bully.

    One consideration though. Can someone who publishes personal information given in confidence on the internet really make an appropriate Counsellor? What of their clients? Just a thought.

    Thank you, and I feel quite humbled by your kind comments.


    1. Hi Simon, thanks for your comments. I would really encourage you to stick with the law, as I feel that your exit from the profession would be a loss for the entire country. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

      As for Sperling, there are some things that are not being blogged on… yet.

  3. Oh yes Simon is such a wonderful caring.person, so caring that he verbally abused his former fiance in front of her family on numerous occasions, the last time being just 4 days after her house had burnt down.

    So caring that he also left her to pay for their engagement rings when he went on to get engaged to another woman a very short time after she called off the engagement due to his abusive tendencies

    1. I have got things wrong, and no doubt will continue to do so. I was dumped a few days after driving from Auckland to Napier, having gone into debt to go and support. I do not think I was abusive, but if I was, I will happily consider my actions and do whatever I can to address this. Also, I had no money after that drive, so why and how should I pay for a ring I advised against. I did send it back.

      I wish this person the very best, and hope that she has managed to get back on her feet. If she feels abused, I suggest that whilst I totally apologise for anus wrongdoing, it does take two to argue.

      Also, this has nothing to do with this case. If someone has issue with me, I will speak with them to resolve it. I never said I was wonderful. I am human. As such, the correct forum for this is face to face and showing mutual respect.

      1. It has everything to do with your integrity though.

        She dumped you after you had gone to Napier because you abused her.

        Also you asked for her to buy both rings with the intention of paying her back for both of them once you had ‘made it’ as a high-flying lawyer.

        She has no respect for you as you did not forward her the same.

      2. I am not sure who you are, but you seem to have one side of this. I asked her not to buy those rings, and spent a fortune in supporting her despite being treated rather badly. She did so due to the stress of her situation, and I tand we did have an argument in front of family members. The cause was one to be annoyed over, but was certainly not abuse. I truly wish her the best. That is all I have to say on this issue.

    1. Forgive my bad grammar…[As above, I think we’ll leave this at 2 comments. – S1]

  4. @countrylife Anyone who knows Simon will confirm his volume control is seriously wonky, he gets worked up and can be frustratingly stubborn.

    Passionate and intense? Often. Too loud? Sometimes. Gets into stupid, shouty arguments with his partner? Very occassionally. (Who doesn’t?) Abusive? No.

    He’s also the first one to say sorry, the first one to admit when he is wrong and the first one to change his behaviour if he is out of line. No, he’s not perfect but I don’t know anyone who is.

  5. Please don’t use this blog to make unfounded accusations against people. It’s not ok for Peter Davis, and it’s not ok for Simon Buckingham.

    1. OH my. I am so sorry. I was in Court and answering on my mobile. Any typo errors were autocorrect. Rude comment not meant. The correct word was ‘any’ and not….. errrmmmm…..

    2. Gr, that obviously reads wrong. I was referring to the fact that someone once made an unfounded accusation about Peter Davis here – it was removed.

      Obviously Peter Davis doesn’t care what people write on obscure blogs.

      The point is that the same rule applies here, in this situation.

      1. It is a balance though. I appreciate the comments as I can learn and try to be better. The woman concerned is a good person, and I am so sorry I hurt her.

        Thanks so much though.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: