Mr Jindal defended debt recovery proceedings brought by Mr Y’s firm to recover their fee. Mr Jindal considered that Mr Y was dishonest on a particular point, but the District Court Judge disagreed and found against Mr Jindal. The Tribunal heard that Mr Jindal remained disgruntled with the outcome and in particular the finding that Mr Y had not lied. A short time later, Mr Jindal set up a website displaying a large photograph of Mr Y with the words “[Mr Y] lied under oath”. The website remained online for six months. Mr Jindal also printed this webpage onto flyers and had three flyers delivered to Mr Y’s home and each of his immediate neighbours, upon which Mr Jindal stated, “Truth is an absolute defence to any claim in defamation. If Mr [Y] has not lied he should file defamation proceedings.” Mr Jindal himself took another flyer and put it under the door of Mr Y’s law firm where it was viewed by staff members and his partners. 

In determining liability, the Tribunal noted that attacking the honesty and reputation of a colleague in such a manner was "very serious" and "appalling" conduct that lawyers of good standing would regard as disgraceful and dishonourable. The Tribunal found that Mr Jindal's conduct was intended to cause upset and degradation (the flyers implied that Mr Y was a danger to public safety) which constituted harassment and was therefore professional misconduct. The Tribunal determined Mr Jindal's conduct flowed from his role representing himself in the civil proceedings and was professional in nature. The Tribunal noted however that the conduct would also meet the higher threshold of personal misconduct. 

In terms of penalty, the Tribunal viewed the significant impact on Mr Y and intimidatory nature of the home (and neighbour) delivery of the flyers as aggravating features of the conduct. The Tribunal noted concern with Mr Jindal's judgement and lack of insight given he was able to articulate advice he would give to clients about proportionality in pursuing litigation at the hearing, but did not seem capable of applying this rationality to his own behaviour. The Tribunal cautioned “qualities of objectivity and the ability to appreciate if not agree with an alternative view of any case are basic skills required of members of the legal profession”. The Tribunal weighed these factors against Mr Jindal’s relative inexperience, and that he was at an early stage in his legal career when the conduct occurred. The Tribunal made orders to suspend Mr Jindal for a period of six months, commencing 22 May 2025, and ordered that he pay $4,784 in compensation to Mr Y. The Tribunal made further orders for censure and costs. 

Mr Jindal has appealed the liability and penalty decisions. The order for suspension is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order of the court.