Disciplinary tribunal censured practitioner for ‘disgraceful and dishonourable conduct’
The New Zealand Supreme Court has granted a short further continuation of a stay of an order imposing a six-month suspension on a legal practitioner under ss 242(1)(e) and 244 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found the practitioner guilty of a misconduct charge. On 8 May 2025, in Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Jindal [2025] NZLCDT 26, the tribunal issued orders under the Act to:
According to the tribunal, the formal censure addressed the practitioner’s:
Under the Act, the tribunal also ordered the practitioner to:
The High Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand issued orders staying the six-month suspension while the practitioner exercised his appeal rights. The stay remained in place until 2 June 2026.
The practitioner applied for leave to appeal. On 9 June 2026, he applied to stay the suspension’s commencement. He alleged that he would need to resign from his employment if denied a stay. The respondent opposed his application.
On 24 June 2026, in Jindal v Auckland Standards Committee 1 [2026] NZSC 83, the Supreme Court of New Zealand characterised the application as one seeking to extend the stay the lower courts previously granted.
The Supreme Court granted the application to continue the stay for a reasonably short period of time until its decision on the application for leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the public interest in the timely implementation of the tribunal’s decisions. The Supreme Court also accepted that the practitioner did not explain why he applied to continue the stay only after more than a week since its expiry.
However, the Supreme Court found a temporary stay appropriate, given the background of the case. If the Supreme Court granted leave, it could then decide whether to further continue the stay.
