The sending of several emails to the associate without consent from the opponent, in a case before the Supreme Court of NSW, was found by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to be a “significant departure from appropriately competent professional conduct”.

On two of the three charges brought, he was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct. The third charge was dismissed.

In arguing against charges that he had communicated in his opponent’s absence, and without his opponent’s consent, with the court concerning a matter of substance connected to ongoing proceedings, Mr Trost argued that by copying his opponent into the email correspondence, he had not breached professional conduct rules.

This, however, was rejected by QCAT, which held that “even in the contemporary age of the instantaneous communication”, simply “cc-ing” an opponent does not meet the standard expected by the rules.

“Indeed, the invocation of modern instantaneous communication in this context is a red herring. The act of sending an email is not rendered bilateral by the simple expedient of simultaneously copying it to the opponent,” QCAT determined.

“If that was so, it would open the gate for all manner of otherwise improper or inappropriate communications to a judge to be justified by the simple expedient of sending a copy to the opponent.”

In holding that Mr Trost should be reprimanded, QCAT mused that the charges brought against him were “serious matters”, and that lawyers must understand that a breach of professional conduct rules in such a manner “is not merely a technical default but goes to one of their fundamental professional obligations”.

VIEW ALL

It also took into account certain mitigating factors, including but not limited to: his insight and remorse, the fact that the conduct took place when Mr Trost was a junior solicitor more than eight years ago and that his career has subsequently “been blemish-free”.

Mr Trost was also ordered to pay LSC’s costs.