The conduct originated in Mr Jindal defending debt recovery proceedings brought his former lawyer’s firm to recover their fee. Mr Jindal accused his former lawyer, Mr Y, of lying on a material point, but the Judge disagreed and found in favour of Mr Y’s firm. Mr Jindal published printed flyers accusing Mr Y, of lying under oath in the proceedings. The flyers were delivered to Mr Y’s home, his neighbours and his workplace. Mr Jindal also set up a website with the same accusation, which he stated was published “in the interests of public safety” and included a picture of Mr Y. The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal (the Tribunal) found the conduct was professional in nature and involved a failure to act with respect and courtesy and constituted harassment. It found the threshold for professional misconduct was met, but noted that it would also meet the higher threshold for personal misconduct. At the penalty stage, the Tribunal imposed a six month suspension, censured Mr Jindal and ordered him to pay compensation to Mr Y and costs. 

Mr Jindal appealed the Tribunal’s liability and penalty decisions. He argued that the conduct was personal and did not reach the threshold for personal misconduct. He also sought for no suspension to be imposed and for the compensation and costs orders to be overturned. His suspension was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. 

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct and noted that "a wide range of conduct has been found to have occurred in a professional capacity…”. The Court accepted that Mr Jindal's conduct had “flowed out” of the civil proceedings and must be seen as part of the same course of conduct. It was therefore not unconnected to regulated services and constituted professional misconduct. The Court held that the conduct met the threshold for disgraceful and dishonourable conduct and "that in embarking on his conduct...Mr Jindal failed to understand and adhere to appropriate standards of conduct towards another member of the profession" and uphold the rule of law.  The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the test for personal misconduct was met in the alternative as Mr Jindal had shown such a fundamental lack of understanding of what being a member of the profession entails. 

In determining the appeal against penalty, the Court did not accept that the conduct was a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression or that Mr Jindal's lack of experience as a lawyer should mitigate the conduct noting that "any lawyer at any stage of their career should have known that the conduct deliberately embarked upon was inappropriate." Further, the Court did not consider the lack of impact on the public was relevant and commented that standards of conduct must be upheld if the public is to have confidence in the profession. The Court upheld the six-month suspension, censure and accepted that orders for compensation and costs were correctly made. The suspension period has been deferred to 2 February 2026.