Fired legal assistant tricked with false emails

A terminated legal employee was told by her boss that there was another job lined up. In reality, he went to great lengths to cover up his lies.

The West Australian Supreme Court has removed Brad Haden Frost, sole practitioner of Frost and Associates, from the roll of practitioners for conduct it found was “deliberately dishonest” and revealed “a fundamental deficiency” in his fitness to practice.

Last May, in the State Administrative Tribunal, Frost agreed to the professional misconduct findings and the strike-off recommendation.

Following his firing of a legal assistant – known only as Ms K – in February 2020, Frost claimed to have two past colleagues and would recommend her for positions he said they had available.

Frost then sent several emails from a family lawyer and sole principal identified as Mr D, including one that stated Mr D was “impressed at how quickly you have started your own business”.

Ms K discovered the ruse after she contacted Mr D directly.

The following day, Frost texted Ms K to claim he spoke with Mr D, who had “asked that no emails go to his work email as it is monitored by internal staff” and to wait until “he has given me the green light”.

When the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (now the Legal Services and Complaints Committee) first became involved, Frost said he thought the emails had come from an “opposing party” and he “had been racking his brain” to understand how it happened.

Up until admitting his conduct in February 2022, Frost continued to lie to the regulator about his involvement.

Justices Michael Lundberg, Stephen Lemonis, and Michael Gething said the conduct was “extremely serious” and noted Frost chose to maintain the deception with “repeated acts of dishonesty”.

“This is not a case in which a practitioner failed to respond to the proper enquiries of the regulatory body, or failed to produce documentary material which has been formally sought.

“In this case, the practitioner maintained the lies and deception he had originally constructed, repeating them on a consistent basis when communicating with the regulator, on each occasion constructing more elaborate lies,” the bench said.

The conduct would “seriously undermine the public’s confidence in the profession” and is inconsistent with the privilege of being entitled to practise, Justices Lundberg, Lemonis, and Gething added.

“On our assessment, the practitioner does not properly understand his obligations as a practitioner,” they said.

“The practitioner’s conduct reveals a present unfitness to practise and demonstrates that he lacks the character and trustworthiness necessary to discharge the responsibilities of legal practice.”

The case: Legal Services and Complaints Committee v Frost [2026] WASC 22 (06 February 2026)