Gautam Jindal will be suspended as of 2 February due to his conduct in a debt recovery matter
The High Court has upheld the six-month suspension set by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal on lawyer Gautam Jindal and rejected his appeal against liability and penalty.
He will be suspended effective 2 February as a result of his conduct during debt recovery proceedings brought by his ex-lawyer’s (Mr Y) firm to be paid their fee. The court determined that Jindal “entirely failed to understand his fundamental obligations as a lawyer” and considered his suspension to be “clearly warranted”.
While defending the proceedings, Jindal claimed that Mr Y had lied on a material point, but the judge sided with Mr Y’s firm. Jindal launched a website featuring Mr Y’s photo and printed out flyers alleging that Mr Y lied under oath; the flyer were sent to Mr Y’s residence, his neighbours and his workplace. Jindal said that he had publicised his accusations “in the interests of public safety”.
The tribunal determined that Jindal’s conduct constituted harassment and that not only had it met the threshold for professional misconduct, it also met the higher personal misconduct threshold. In addition to the six-month suspension, the tribunal also censured Jindal and ordered him to compensate Mr Y as well as pay costs.
Jindal contested the tribunal’s finding that his behaviour met the personal misconduct threshold and appealed for the overturning of the suspension and the compensation and costs orders. The suspension was held pending the court’s ruling on the appeal.
The High Court agreed with the tribunal that Jindal had displayed professional misconduct; it had resulted from the proceedings and must be considered as part of the same course of conduct, not distinguished from regulated services. The court also found that Jindal’s conduct met the disgraceful and dishonourable conduct threshold, saying that “Mr Jindal failed to understand and adhere to appropriate standards of conduct towards another member of the profession”.
The court shot down the argument that Jindal’s behaviour constituted a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. It said that regardless of Jindal’s level of experience in the profession, “any lawyer at any stage of their career should have known that the conduct deliberately embarked upon was inappropriate”. The court also found irrelevant the argument that Jindal’s conduct did not affect the public; it noted that standards of conduct must be adhered to to promote public confidence in the profession.
