The AWU Scandal – Things Ms GILLARD did wrong

Mike Smith list even more clearly my thesis that Gillard’s “I did nothing wrong” is a clear lie.

  1. Sleeping with your client.   Lawyers are like doctors.   Years of experience have produced lessons we can all learn from.   One of them is “don’t sleep with your client”.  It’s bad when
    the client is a person paying the bills themselves.   It’s worse when the client is the boss of an organisation paying the bills with other people’s money.   To make it easier, lawyers don’t have to rely on their own judgement.   The Law Society and the Law make it clear.   It
    is wrong.
  2. Passing off.  I can’t set up an airline and call it Qantas.   That name is taken.    It would be wrong for a Telstra manager’s girlfriend to set up the Telstra Accounts Receivable Association and pass it off as a Telstra entity.   But Julia GILLARD wrote on the 2 forms that
    set up the AWU Workplace Reform Association.  She wrote out the name Australian Worker’s Union.   She is an officer of the court.   It’s pretty basic.
  3. Giving advice to break the law or union rules.   The AWU-WRA’s application was fraudulent.   It told lies about itself.   Ms GILLARD  was setting up a slush fund but she told the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner it was a workplace reform association.   Ian Cambridge’s affidavit sets out the union rules that the Association broke.   Lawyers
    should not advise clients to break the law or the rules of their employer.   Particularly clients with whom they are sleeping.
  4. The relationship with Wilson from 1991 to 1995 was close.   People in close relationships observe each other closely.   That’s the nature of close relationships.    Bruce’s official income was a union official’s pay.  He had a wife and 2 children to support in Perth.   His lifestyle in Melbourne was curious.   A satisfactory explanation to the questions about visible means of support is found in the bank statements of the AWU-WRA.   Lots of cash came out.   It’d be hard to miss.  It is probably wrong not to ask question.
  5. The Power of Attorney?   Ms GILLARD supervised the donation of Ralph Blewitt’s power of attorney to Bruce Wilson.  By 1993 communications technology had developed to include the post and facsimile machines.   It was a curious thing, the need for an able bodied young man, who frequently availed himself of air travel, to donate his complete power of attorney to his boss the boyfriend and client WILSON.   It doesn’t seem right.   And then Wilson used that Power of Attorney to sign Blewitt up for $150K in borrowings from his girlfriend’s law firm.
  6. The whole purchase of Kerr Street Fitzroy has wrongness written all over it.  The path used by dubious characters to launder unlawfully obtained money into real property that can be spoken of in polite circles is a well-trodden one.   Astute lawyers are a wake-up to it. Bruce and Ms GILLARD went to the auction.  Bruce signed the papers.  It turns out he was doing a love job for Blewitt, because Bruce bought the joint for Blewitt.   And Julia’s firm was engaged on the spot to do the legal legwork.   A prudent lawyer in the circumstances might have enquired about Blewitt’s capacity to repay the loan advanced to him, particularly given that Blewitt was committing to the loan and the purchase on Bruce’s say so, using the Power of Attorney.   The firm might have sought a bank opinion.   Or enquired about the source of the funds to complete the sale.  The firm might have noted the $67,772.30 cheque drawn on the Association set up for free.   And the clause in the Association’s rules that said said, “no part of the property of income of the Association may be distributed to members directly or indirectly.”  Just wrong.
  7. Failing to advise the union of the AWU-WRA.   Bruce was advised in writing on  4 August 1995 of the union’s intention to bring charges against him and to refer his conduct to police.   Ms Gillard of Slater and Gordon continued to provide legal advice to him.   The conflict of interest in her personal relationship was then intense.   She was aware of the AWU-WRA but did nothing to advise the union of it.   She admitted as much to her partners in the 11 September departure interview.  That is shameful.

Read the whole post:

One Commenter asks the right questions:

Your best post yet Michael. Bravo!

She says she did nothing wrong. So let’s turn it into a series of questions in the present tense. Would Ms Gillard recommend any lawyer act in these ways today? Can she really continue to say, “I did nothing wrong”.

* Is it RIGHT to sleep with your client?
* Is it RIGHT to incorporate a false organisation using the name of another organisation without it’s knowledge and permission? Isn’t that deception? Does it matter less or more if the offended organisation is a notable client of your own law firm in which you are a partner?
* Is it RIGHT to deceive a state government about the purpose of an organisation you set up?
* Is it RIGHT to be involved in the purchase and conveyance of a house where funds are used from a false organisation (that you helped set up) against it’s own rules but in favour of a person you are sleeping with? Do four wrongs make a right?
* Is it RIGHT for you and your law firm not to tell your client about misappropriation of funds by a person you are sleeping with through a false organisation that you helped set up, after the misappropriation was discovered by your law firm and you were “released” from the firm due to this issue? (How many wrongs are there in that one, I’ve lost count?)

Keep it up Michael and the rest of you battlers out there. Truth matters.

Posted by: Ian Davidson | Wednesday, 05 September 2012 at 12:04 PM

4 thoughts on “The AWU Scandal – Things Ms GILLARD did wrong

  1. So much of this piece is wrong, but… the non affair is so bad that nothing is gong to happen. Tony Abbott doesn’t know the questions ‘that must be answered’ and… we are all bored with your attempts to cause scandal. Like so many of the past attempt, they amount to no more than ‘digging up dirt’ that isn’t there. If you take a look at the attacks on Tony Abbott (also digging for dirt) you will see one notable difference: more attack on the the implications to his words, re, his discomfort, snide remarks in Parlaiment, and active domination over women. I fear that characteristic more than anything you’ve said about our PM.

  2. Care to enlighten us on what is wrong with the article Garry? Echoing Wong with the Abbott Abbott Abbott mantra is so passe, only lefties haven’t realised that yet. I suppose you have full confidence in the member for Dobell as well.

  3. And she is now Prime Minister. What does that say about the Labour Party who knew, the electorate that voted her in and the legal system which allowed these transgressions to occur. She should be doing serious time. Any other Australian would in her position but then she’s not Australian is she – she’s welsh. Maybe they have different ethical standards over there but I doubt it.

Comments are closed.