Mahvash Ikram
The Supreme Court has granted a temporary stay on a six-month suspension order imposed by the Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal on an Auckland lawyer for “appalling” behaviour towards another practitioner.
The tribunal found Gautam Jindal guilty of misconduct in May 2025. His suspension was due to begin on 22 May but has been stayed several times to enable him to appeal.
During the hearing, the tribunal heard that Jindal had mounted a campaign of harassment against a fellow lawyer, Mr Y, who was trying to recover unpaid fees from Jindal. This included launching a website and printing flyers claiming Mr Y had lied under oath during a civil proceeding and distributing these flyers to Mr Y’s neighbours and his law firm.
The tribunal said attacking the honesty and reputation of a colleague in this way was “very serious” and lawyers of good standing would regard it as disgraceful and dishonourable conduct.
Unsuccessful appeals
Over the past year, Jindal has been knocked back by both the High Court and Court of Appeal and has now asked the Supreme Court to hear his case.
After receiving an affidavit stating he would have to resign from his job if the suspension order were not stayed, the Supreme Court granted his application while it considers whether to hear the matter.
Earlier stays granted by the High Court and the Court of Appeal expired on 2 June.
Jindal says he launched the campaign against Mr Y “in the interest of public safety” and was exercising his right to freedom of expression.
The High Court dismissed the appeal earlier this year, saying the suspension was warranted and the orders for compensation and costs were appropriate. The court said Jindal’s misconduct demonstrated he was not a fit and proper person to practise law and that he had “entirely failed to understand his fundamental obligations as a lawyer”.
The court ordered the suspension to take effect from 2 February this year but Jindal sought leave to appeal and his suspension was again stayed. The Court of Appeal declined to hear the matter and ordered the suspension to commence from 2 June.
Jindal then made his application to the Supreme Court .
The charge
The misconduct charge arose from a 2016 dispute when Jindal was a law student and sought advice about a potential claim against a broker.
He approached an Auckland lawyer, Mr Y, who told Jindal he would need to pay a $5000 retainer for the matter to proceed. Jindal decided not to go ahead and was not billed.
In 2020, he approached Mr Y again regarding the same dispute and sent him 125 pages of background documentation, which Mr Y says he read before a subsequent meeting with Jindal.
Before the meeting, Mr Y said he explained to his client by phone that he would incur charges for the meeting. (Jindal denies this phone call took place.) Following the meeting, he was billed nearly $1000, which he refused to pay. Mr Y’s firm filed debt-recovery proceedings with the District Court.
The hearing took place in 2022 and by then Jindal had been admitted as a barrister and solicitor and represented himself. The court ruled in favour of Mr Y, saying it found him to be honest, and rejected Jindal’s claim that he had lied about the phone call. The judge described Jindal as “evasive” and fixated solely on his own account.
Jindal appealed but ultimately withdrew after reaching a confidential settlement with Mr Y’s firm in April 2023.
The fallout
In mid-2023, Jindal slipped a document under the door of Mr Y’s law firm, again accusing him of lying under oath. He also placed copies in Mr Y’s letterbox and the letterboxes of his neighbours. He created a website displaying a large photograph of Mr Y with prominent headlines stating “[Mr Y] lied under oath” and inviting Mr Y to file defamation proceedings, declaring “truth is an absolute defence”.
When Mr. Y’s counsel demanded the website be taken down, Jindal refused, stating he hoped “every lawyer and member of the legal fraternity gets a chance to view it”.
The site remained active for roughly six months and recorded hundreds of views. Jindal also attempted to file a private prosecution against Mr Y for perjury, which was rejected by a District Court judge.
This prompted Mr Y to file a complaint with the Lawyers Complaints Service. The Auckland Legal Standards Committee subsequently charged Jindal with misconduct under s 7(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and a breach of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.
The decision
The tribunal censured Jindal found him guilty of misconduct and ordered him to pay compensation and costs totalling $62,544.
Jindal argued he was acting in a personal capacity as a client, but the tribunal noted he had represented himself in the District Court proceedings where he utilised his legal skills.
Accusing a fellow practitioner of lying under oath, directly contradicted the District Court judge’s explicit factual findings, the tribunal said. It was wrongdoing “at the highest end of impropriety”.
It rejected Jindal’s argument that the website was a matter of “public safety”.
0 Comments