Auckland solicitor Gautam Jindal suspended for six months after harassing fellow lawyer

RNZ News

14-05-2025

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.