In one email sent on the evening of 15 November 2023, the woman wrote: “Your Honour, people shouldn’t change their drink?! Like you killed me with this vodka s**t!! Dying!! That’s why I knew as an adult to just drink wine! Teeth are dying?? But I am not! Vodka I may!”

In one sent earlier this month with the subject line “hearing listed”, the woman wrote: “Okay we all know I’m drunk? And I’m just eating butter on toast? Like who doesn’t like butter on toast?”

Given the conduct was occurring at the same time the court was debating whether she should be admitted into the profession, Chief Justice Patrick Grant said there was “no doubt” the woman is not currently a fit and proper person to be allowed to practise.

“This is not a case in which there has been some isolated lapse or lapses into inappropriate behaviours by the applicant, punctuating what is otherwise an appropriate course of communication.

“This is a course of perverse, inappropriate and entirely unprofessional conduct by communication which has persisted for in excess of a year … despite the fact she has been warned … that to do so would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial to her application for admission to the profession,” Justice Grant said.

The Law Society submitted the volume of emails increased from April 2023 until she was blocked as a result of an account crash in October. The email address was unblocked in February and the Law Society received a further 958 emails in just a few weeks.

The court said it received 8,044 emails from the woman between March 2023 and April 2024, which also caused its accounts to crash.

A psychiatrist said the woman told her she sent the emails because grounds of appeal and delayed timetables “caused her frustration, and she believed that the emails might then trigger some response”.

The psychiatrist explained the behaviour raised concerns about her capacity to manage herself in a professional setting and is consistent with the current “impaired incapacity” to engage in legal practice.

Justice Grant added the woman sought to justify or explain her conduct to the psychiatrist on the “basis of frustration, honesty and anger at her circumstances, and also on the basis that she sent some of the communications when she was intoxicated”.

After the report was received, a directions hearing was listed for 16 November 2023. The woman did not appear but sent a chain of emails the previous night that ran to 85 pages in length.

In them, the woman wrote the following:

• Your honour,? Not fAir [sic] I’m drunk
• CJ please be nice! I’ll be drunk? But I’m passing out soon
• But after India? I realised dating was about charm
• Loving my drunk misygonist [sic] drunk rants?
• Your honour, I am dying! I haven’t vomited this much since a kid!!
• and yes you can laugh! I’m dying! But woke up at bottleshop opening time

In one of the more lengthy emails, the woman said she was told she contracted a urinary tract infection from “either s**t sex or ecstasy”, and repeated this at least twice more in emails, including by writing that a doctor was “teaching me a lesson don’t have s**t sex on drugs” and “learn to have s**t sex and pee afterwards”.

In February 2024, the woman seemed to ask if she could have “wine and ciggie [sic] tonight” and later wrote: “I didn’t say gay! I say gayly! Okay okay he wasn’t acting gayly? Just weird eyes submissive?”

The court added emails sent between 31 March and 6 April 2024 continued to demonstrate she was “not currently of good fame and character”. In some of them, the woman wrote:

• Gosh I love love! Like you’re a very lucky person who wakes to two beautiful dogs cuddling you.
• I must laugh after she made weird s**t…who cares?..I actually need to pee?
• Anyway, slept so well last night and again had really good dreams – this dreaming thing is seriously so awesome

During a conversation in a January 2024 directions hearing, the woman told Justice Grant she felt it was “very unfair” that a “bunch of people” said she had done something wrong.

When Justice Grant told her it was “the least of your difficulties here”, it led to an unusual exchange about a stranger’s dog.

The woman bizarrely claimed she stopped a dog from attacking her own dog and then a woman and her partner yelled at her.

“At the moment, again, we have no evidence I’ve done anything wrong. So why am I in trouble? Why are you saying I need to watch my back – that’s the least of my worries. Because what have I done wrong?” the woman asked Justice Grant.

In response, he said: “Because your behaviour over the last period of time since you have made the application, including in your emails and your court appearances, makes it abundantly clear that at the present time, you are an unsuitable person for admission to practice.”