Today we're going to play "help the fib-pot".
Sometimes fibbers try to make you think they're not fibbing.
Today we're going to check this file, it's called a conveyancing file, because fib-pot has said she wasn't in charge of the "Conveyancing".
There are lots of places in this file where it looks to me like fib-pot was in charge. Fib-pot was at the auction with her boyfriend. Fib-pot prepared the Power of Attorney which was produced a long time after the auction. Fib-pot said, "here's one I prepared earlier," but I think she was fibbing then too.
Check out the file and see if you can see where fib-pot is acting like someone who is in charge (remeber fib-pot was a partner, a boss, in the law firm. Olive worked for the partners and fib-pot was one of the partners. It would be awful if fib-pot wanted to hang one of the workers out to dry, wouldn't it? Or further antagonise one of fib-pot's partners like Nick Styant-Browne by saying he was in charge of the file. That might make Nick angry and likely to unredact.)
Here is a note from a grown-up. Fib-pot doesn't know which grown-up lawyer wrote it. But it might help fib-pot to know that grown-up lawyers with a very close and involved knowledge of this case are on to her. It might help fib-pot to stop her fibbing. Here is the grown-up lawyer's comment on the conveyancing file.
Mike – a few comments. There are two files – a conveyancing file and a mortgage lending file.
The conveyancing file has no lawyer from Slater & Gordon make any file notes about their instructions. Julia Gillard who created and witnessed the Power of Attorney and who attended the auction did not make one file note about her instructions from Ralph Blewitt the ostensible client of S&G. There is a good reason why- she never spoke to Blewitt about the Power of Attorney or about the purchase of the property. Her instructions all came from Wilson. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer not to record their instructions and not to write to the client confirming their instructions to act in a matter.
The second observation is that Wilson , Blewit and Gillard all knew when the Association documents were lodged in April 1992 that the next AWU elections were scheduled to take place to take place in September 1993 for nominations to be lodged and voting to take place in December 1993. The Association accumulated funds from April 1992 until December 1992 in the sum of about $93,000 and no withdrawals took place over this period except for $2000 on 23 December 1992. This was an election fund accumulating money to fight an election in 1993.However in January 1993 the AWU and FIMME reached an agreement to postpone AWU elections until June 1995. All this was known to Wilson, Blewitt and Gillard in January 1993.
This meant that funds from the Association were now available to fund the purchase of a property.
In her statement to S&G on 11 September 1995 Gillard states that she believed that Blewitt had access to “excess funds “- i.e the excess funds of the Association. The property was an expensive property in Melbourne at the time- Gillard in July 1991 as a salaried partner at S&G could only afford to purchase a property in the sum of $152,000 – an un-renovated weatherboard house. How could a union official afford to buy an expensive renovated “investment property” in Melbourne out of his own savings which required equity in the sum of $ 92,772.60? In her statement it is clear that she never spoke to Blewitt himself about the purchase of the property.
You see fibby, when you take instructions from a client, when it's you and just you dealing with them, they're entitled to think that you the lawyer are in charge of their matter. If not you at Slater and Gordon, then who? Have a think before you answer, because your answer could have dire consequences for you and your liberty.