It imposed penalties on Jindal, but these have been stayed after he appealed the tribunal‘s decision to the High Court.
The tribunal, in a recent decision, said Jindal had been consumed by his “crusade” after he perceived an injustice to himself.
The tribunal 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 tribunal 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 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.”
Censured and suspended
The tribunal censured and suspended Jindal from practising law for six months from May 22 - 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 a 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 tribunal‘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 tribunal‘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 tribunal‘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.”
$999 fee sparked dispute
Two successive tribunal 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 decision 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 tribunal 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.
Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of frontline experience as a probation officer.
