In mid-February 2020, Frost terminated his legal assistant, known only as Ms K, due to financial constraints, but told her he had two contacts at court who were looking to fill that position in their own firms.

When Ms K settled on one, Frost created an email chain that purported to show communications between himself and the firm owner, Mr D. He forwarded this to Ms K so she could correspond with the fake Mr D.

In addition to false pleasantries that suggested he and Mr D had been in frequent contact, Frost sent himself an email from Mr D to say: “Also, I am impressed at how quickly you started your own business.”

The emails from Mr D requested communications be restricted to emailing only and through “my private email address”.

About a week after Ms K emailed her résumé, she phoned the real Mr D’s law firm to follow up and was told Mr D did not know Frost and had not received any of the email communications she referred to.

VIEW ALL

Having reviewed the chain, Mr D told Frost and Ms K to “consider reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities”.

In response, Frost wrote back: “I believe this may be a cause for concern and I will take this up accordingly.”

Minutes later, he sent Ms K a text message to allege he had spoken to Mr D on the phone, who had asked “that no emails go to his work email as it is monitored by internal staff”. Frost also asked Ms K not to contact Mr D “until he has given me the green light”.

A call to Mr D’s firm confirmed he had been on a conference call at the time Frost alleged they spoke on the phone.

In correspondence with the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, Frost attempted to shift the blame onto Mr S, an opposing party of a client he had previously acted for in a family law matter.

He also wrote there was “no benefit” to him by creating the false email address to portray Mr D, and therefore “I have not done this”.

The case is Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Frost [2025] VR 38