Former solicitor Brad Haden Frost has been struck from the jam roll by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in a judgment delivered earlier this month.
Brad was done for sending fake emails and subsequently misleading the then Legal Profession and Complaints Committee.
This outcome follows the earlier finding of the State Administrative Tribunal that Frost engaged in numerous instances of ‘professional misconduct’ within the meaning of the since-repealed Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).
Frost, previously a sole practitioner, embarked on his strange path of deceit in early 2020, when he let go a member of his administrative staff, known as Ms K.
Perhaps to soften the blow of her impending unemployment, Frost told Ms K that he had been in contact with two other firms which could be interested in hiring her. This included the law practice of a solicitor known as Mr D.
Frost then created a fake Gmail Account in the name of Mr D, and procured an email chain of false pleasantries. This included chummy accolades from Mr D for Frost’s own private practice.
Hi Brad,
It was great catching up in court last week. How time flies when you’re busy. Also I am impressed at how quickly you have started your own business. Remember I am always hereto [sic] chat about running a small family law practice (after 16 years in business I still feel like an amateur but it all apart [sic] of the experience).
If you can please email me [Ms K’s] details I will touch base. Also, please email my private email address.
Thanks, [Mr D].
In the fourth email of the chain, Frost then purported to virtually introduce Ms K to Mr D, copying her into the correspondence and inviting her to send her resume.
As Ms K did not hear back from Mr D for some time, she followed up by calling Mr D’s office. She discovered that Mr D did not in fact know Frost, and had not sent those earlier emails.
On the same day, Frost attempted to dissuade Ms K from contacting Mr D by sending a false text message saying that the two had just spoken over the phone, and instructing Ms K not to contact Mr D without Frost’s go-ahead.
Undeterred, and on the advice of Mr D, Ms K reported the matter to the LPCC in March 2020. Although in October that year she later withdrew her complaint for unknown reasons, the LPCC decided to continue the investigation independently.
Rather than come clean with the LPCC, Frost’s bizarre deception expanded. He made multiple false representations in what the Supreme Court determined to be an attempt to mislead the LPCC and frustrate their investigations. This included a false statutory declaration.
Alongside claiming to have not created the email account, Frost suggested that the emails may have instead been sent by a certain Mr S, a former opposing side’s client in a family law matter.
As evidence for this accusation, Frost claimed that he had previously been sent ‘bogus emails’ by S, that S had previously pretended to be a 14-year-old girl to obtain information, and that he had received threats with references to that case from his website.
Frost additionally claimed that in early 2020, he received email correspondence saying his Hotmail password had been acquired.
However, despite numerous requests and time extensions granted by the LPCC, Frost was unable to provide copies of emails he referenced in his defence.
By early 2022, faced with an increasingly untenable case, Frost came clean and on the advice of senior counsel, admitted to fabricating the email address, email communications, and parts of the statutory declaration. Frost further did not oppose the Legal Services and Complaints Committee’s application to de-roll him.
His admissions and lack of opposition to the application of the LSCC further quelled a question of interpretation that arises between the recently repealed Legal Profession Act (2008) (WA), and the currently in force Uniform Law.
While the earlier legislation provided that the report from the tribunal was conclusive as to all facts and findings mentioned or contained, the subsequent Uniform Law does not contain the same provision.
However, the bench determined such a question did not need to be answered in these proceedings.
On the basis of the material available, the Court ultimately concluded that Frost was not a fit and proper person, and that his conduct, when viewed in its totality, would seriously undermine public confidence in the legal profession.