The lawyer had been charged with misconduct and given a six-month suspension
The Court of Appeal has rejected lawyer Gautam Jindal’s leave to appeal the High Court’s ruling regarding New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal’s liability and penalty decisions.
The tribunal had charged Jindal with misconduct and laid down a six-month suspension. Jindal was also ordered to compensate his ex-lawyer’s firm and shoulder costs.
The suspension, which had been set for 2 February, was stayed pending the results of Jindal’s leave application, but it has since been effected. Jindal began serving the suspension on 2 June, according to the NZ Law Society.
The High Court had determined in January that Jindal was not a fit and proper person when he engaged in misconduct and that he had “entirely failed to understand his fundamental obligations as a lawyer”. The suspension was warranted and the compensation and costs orders were appropriate, the court ruled.
Jindal’s misconduct charge arose from his behavior during debt recovery proceedings brought by his former lawyer, referred to as Mr Y, to recover fees owed to Mr Y’s firm. Jindal had accused Mr Y of deceit in relation to a material point, but the judge decided in Mr Y’s favour. Subsequently, Jindal launched a website and issued flyers claiming that Mr Y lied under oath.
The tribunal decided that this conduct was tantamount to harassment; moreover, it hit the personal misconduct threshold. Jindal challenged the ruling in High Court, arguing that he had gone public “in the interests of public safety” and that he was exercising his right to freedom of expression.
The High Court determined that Jindal’s behavior met the disgraceful and dishonourable conduct threshold and said that Jindal “failed to understand and adhere to appropriate standards of conduct towards another member of the profession”. It admonished him that “any lawyer at any stage of their career should have known that the conduct deliberately embarked upon was inappropriate”; thus, Jindal’s supposed lack of practitioner experience was not a mitigating factor.
The court also said that standards of conduct must be adhered to in order to promote public confidence in the profession; thus, Jindal was mistaken in thinking that his conduct did not affect the public.
