Auckland solicitor Gautam Jindal suspended for six months after harassing fellow lawyer
By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of
Gautam Jindal committed "disgraceful and dishonourable" misconduct, a standards committee found.
Photo:
An Auckland solicitor faces possible suspension for six months and having to pay more than $62,500 after a "vengeful crusade" against another lawyer.
Gautam Jindal set up a website and printed leaflets alleging the other lawyer "lied under oath" after a civil court case went against him.
A Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society found Jindal committed "disgraceful and dishonourable" misconduct.
It imposed penalties on Jindal, but these have been stayed after he appealed the committee's decision to the High Court.
The standards committee, in a recent decision, said Jindal had been consumed by his "crusade" after he perceived an injustice to himself.
The committee imposed a non-publication order on the other lawyer's name and identifying details, referring to him as "Mr Y".
A judge in the court case between Y and Jindal determined that Y had not told lies in court.
The committee said that, in addition to the website, Jindal printed off leaflets and delivered them to Y's home, his neighbours' houses, and to his law firm, where they were seen by staff.
Jindal did not take the website down even after a settlement in the legal dispute had been reached and a complaint made against him to the Law Society.
"We have no doubt that the harassment involved in Mr Jindal's conduct is very serious misconduct," the committee's decision said.
"It was appalling conduct to react to a judicial decision by setting up a web address featuring Mr Y's name, to intrude on Mr Y's private home for seemingly no purpose other than to harm him, and to retain the website even after ... notice of complaint to the Law Society."
The committee censured and suspended Jindal from practising law for six months from 22 May - the delay was to minimise inconvenience to Jindal's clients and legal firm.
It also ordered him to pay $4784 in compensation to Y, $40,866 in costs to the standards committee, and $16,874 to cover the costs of the NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
However, Jindal appealed to the High Court, which on Wednesday ordered a stay of the committee's decisions.
Jindal's barrister Steve Keall told NZME Jindal's appeal "has merit".
"He expects to be vindicated in time when the appeal has been determined," he said.
The committee's decision earlier said that the harm caused to Y and his family was significant.
"Mr Y talks of sleepless nights, his wife's fears, and loss of enjoyment of activities," the decision said.
Y also had to engage another lawyer to try to stop Jindal's actions.
When asked about his reaction to the committee's decision, Jindal said: "I've just been pinged for being too vocal about my thoughts.
"I think it is a very, very peculiar case and sometimes, unfortunately, people get caught in very peculiar and unfavourable circumstances."
Two successive standards committee decisions reveal that the dispute began with a $999 fee charged to Jindal by Y.
Y took district court proceedings against Jindal when he did not pay, and the judge found in Y's favour.
Jindal appealed, but withdrew that appeal after a confidential settlement out of court.
In the meantime, however, Jindal had put up a website carrying a large photo of Y, his name and the words "lied under oath".
He printed the web page out as a leaflet and delivered it to Y's house, his neighbours, and law firm.
"We regard the intimidatory nature of the home (and neighbour) delivery of the leaflets ... an aggravating feature," the committee said.
Jindal, who used to work in information technology, had also bought an internet domain which matched Y's name, and which would have put any content about Y published on it at the top of search engines.
In his defence, Jindal, who was admitted to the bar in October 2021, told the committee that he was acting in his personal capacity and not that of a lawyer when publishing the website.
He said that it represented his opinion and thoughts, and was done in good faith.
He also said that lawyers have a right to freedom of expression.
* This story originally appeared in the
New Zealand Herald.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
18 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Marlborough residents speak against council's preferred water plan
By Kira Carrington, Local Democracy Reporter Brendan Kearney speaks at the Marlborough District Council's Local Water Done Well hearing. Photo: LDR/Kira Carrington Residents have spoken against the Marlborough District Council's preferred water services model at a Local Water Done Well hearing on Monday. The Government requires councils to choose from five water service delivery options ‒ a modified status quo (an in-house council department), a single council-controlled organisation, a multi-council-controlled organisation, and two types of trusts. The Marlborough District Council's preferred option is to create a standalone Water Services Organisation owned and controlled by the council. The council said it would find greater efficiencies to deliver better service at a lower cost, and have more borrowing capacity to maintain and improve the region's water infrastructure. But Marlborough residents aren't convinced. Of about 45 submissions made, 58 percent wanted to keep water services in-house, compared to 13 percent who preferred the standalone organisation. The remainder did not indicate a preference. Five people spoke on their submissions at a hearing in the council chamber on Monday, and they were all opposed to a standalone organisation. Brendan Kearney, who used to be chief executive of a council-controlled organisation in Canterbury, said there was no proof that a separate organisation would be more efficient, and setting up and funding a separate entity could cost ratepayers more. It would "inevitably duplicate some overhead costs", Kearney said. He said he saw no reason for water services to be removed from a council that had maintained its water systems relatively well. "[Water] assets are in good or very good condition. That's a credit to the current council and past councils as well. Council also has low debt relative to its peers. "This is compelling evidence, in my view, that the council has performed well and will continue to do so." To create a separate organisation, Kearney said the council would need to appoint directors, manage a new relationship with the organisation, and manage the organisation's own agenda. "A standalone company is no guarantee of good governance." Kearney said there also needed to be balance in who footed the water infrastructure bill between the ratepayers of today and of tomorrow. "It's unfair to gift hundreds of millions of dollars ... to the next generations completely debt free. That means the past generations paid too much. "On the other hand, it's unfair to get those assets, billions of dollars of assets, fully debt funded ... it's unfair on future generations. "Something in between those two extremes needs to happen." Submitter Lauchy Hynd said that creating a separate organisation to take on debt outside the council books was not sustainable. "What happens when we default?" Hynd said. "We're leveraging [water assets] by three to five times to borrow money against them. "This looks to me like Three Waters from the back door. "You can kick the can down the road and borrow recklessly, but I appeal to you to act boldly on behalf of the people." Submitters also voiced concerns about allowing an unelected and "unaccountable" organisation to take control of water services. "How do we maintain the ownership and the status of [water] assets in the hands of the people of Marlborough, when we're divesting them to an unelected group?" Hynd said. Submitter Bob Watson said he was worried about the potential to more easily privatise a separate organisation, pointing how the United Kingdom's water management became privatised. Ten regional water authorities were formed in 1974, which the UK government then sold to the private sector in 1989. "I think that the potential for private ownership ... basically our water utilities to be sold off to another entity, and for us to lose the democratic voice, would be terrible," Watson said. "I like the idea that [we're] here with people that have represented the community who can speak for us." The coalition Government had previously said that privatisation of water services was not on the table. The council would make its final decision on water services delivery on June 26, and submit its plan to the Government for approval by 3 September . LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
RNZ News
30 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Newtown death over weekend was dubstep musician Oliver Hayes
On Monday Police said they were undertaking a post-mortem. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER The person who died at a property in Newtown in Wellington on Saturday night was 40-year-old dubstep musician Oliver Hayes. Police were called to the death on Mansfield Street at around 7.15pm. In a post on social media his sister Louise Hayes said her brother, who was also known as Olie Bassweight, had been found unexpectedly dead on Saturday. "There is a police investigation. It seems something terrible might have happened to him. We wait for answers." Louise said Olie had touched many with his music, philosophy, curiosity and passion. "His light was like no other. We are heartbroken and thrown into tumultuous grief and shock. I don't know what else to say." Police said their inquires into the circumstance surrounding Hayes's death were ongoing. "Police are appealing for anyone who knew Mr Hayes and who had recent contact with him, to please contact us immediately. "Police would also like to speak to anyone who may have seen Mr Hayes in the days prior to Saturday evening, in particular residents of the apartment complex who may have seen him moving about." Information could be reported using the reference file number 250607/5712. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
31 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Military panel drops two charges against soldier accused of filming during sex without consent
Corporal Manu Smith. Photo: Pool / Stuff / Kai Schwoerer Two of the charges against a soldier accused of taking sexual videos without consent have been dropped. Corporal Manu Smith was facing a Court Martial on three counts of making intimate visual recordings under the Armed Forces Discipline Act. In a Court Martial, a military panel make a decision on the accused's guilt or innocence. On Tuesday morning, Justice Tom Gilbert, who was presiding over the court, advised the military panel that he had granted the defence's request to drop two of the charges. The judge said the two charges were dismissed for legal reasons, because in light of the evidence, he ruled that a properly directed panel could not reasonably convict on those charges. That afternoon, the accused Corporal Manu Smith gave evidence for the defence. Defence lawyer Timothy Leighton asked Corporal Smith why he had taken out his phone and started recording during sex with the complainant, and if the woman had known he was filming. Corporal Smith said he saw it as a way of expressing their intimacy and that she had seen that he was filming on his phone, and did nothing to indicate she wanted him to stop filming. He said the pair's relationship had been sexual from the start, and they both shared intimate sexual images with each other. Corporal Smith said the pair had talked about boundaries. "Yes, I expected the same respect from her that she did with me, in terms of sharing content with a third party or anybody outside. "...It was a circle of trust, it should have been. I don't want images of me shared with her girlfriends, nor would she want me to share intimate images of her." He said the pair had discussed filming sexual encounters, while discussing their sexual likes and dislikes, and he believed she was open to it. Corporal Smith said he believed he did have consent to record the sexual encounter which is the subject of the complaint, and he said if she had asked him to stop he would have. The prosecution's captain John Whitcombe asked Corporal Smith about the nature of his relationship with the complainant and whether she had reason to assume it was a exclusive relationship. Corporal Smith said the nature of their relationship was not discussed, but he saw it as non-exclusive and he believed she did too. Captain John Whitcombe challenged Corporal Smith's assertion that the woman had consented to the sex being filmed, asking if there was ever an express discussion about him filming on the day in question. Corporal Smith said they had talked about it in a light-hearted jovial way. "There was no black and white, no written agreement," he told the court. The defence and prosecution will give their closing addresses on Tuesday afternoon. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
