I'm going to start here with the very end in mind.

The end of the Cambridge Affidavit.

Let's work it backwards.

Here is the last page.

Hidden in plain view on the last page of Ian Cambridge's Affidavit, all that time.

The critical nature of the file held by Maurice Blackburn.  

We've not heard a whisper about any activity of late at Maurice Blackburn.   I know that the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad is exceptionally effective at maintaining its secrecy and the confidentiality of its operations.   That said our focus has been so strong on Slater and Gordon, we may have overlooked the tell tale chat that generally accompanies a visit from friends in blue ties seeking information.   Has anyone heard anything?

It's hard to imagine the police have treated Maurice Blackburn differently from Slater and Gordon as a potential source of documentary evidence.   If so, then the question of who might have received confidential legal advice from Maurice Blackburn and thus who could mount a case to argue privilege at any appearance before the Magistrates' Court when a potential search warrant is returned is a pivotal question. 

I have had it put to me by more than one person in authority that a 1990s Melbourne Labor lawyer threatened with the sack by a Labor Law Firm would have been well advised to seek out John Cain Jr of Maurice Blackburn for advice.

On 9 August, 1995, Ian Cambridge wrote to the boss of the Commonwealth Bank in Melbourne.   For context, on 4 August AWU Victorian Secretary Bob Smith had written to Cambridge advising that Wilson would be charged internally on AWU charges and referrred to the police.   Here's the Cambridge 9 August letter, 5 days after Smith's advice about the Wilson charges:

Cambridge says "Further to our recent telephone conversation", he had recently spoken to the Commonwealth Bank boss Peter McArthy who stated that parties were respectively represented by Maurice Blackburn and Slater and Gordon.

But whoever appeared ostensibly for Slater and Gordon was keen for the Slater and Gordon involvement not to be formally recorded.   Almost every material communication or direction to the Commonwealth Bank for the feuding parties is made on the exclusive instructions of Maurice Blackburn.

John Cain from Maurice Blackburn wrote to the Commonwealth Bank on 14 July, 1995, confirming his firm acts for The AWU Victoria Branch and asserting that Bruce Wilson should no longer be recognised in his signatory roles.   That's a statement that is clearly contrary to Wilson's interests - expressed by Wilson that same day signing and depositing a cheque drawn on the AWU Members Welfare Association to transfer $160,000 to another Wilson/Blewitt account beyond Smith's reach. Cain could not represent both parties to that dispute.

Here's the cheque Wilson and Jim Collins signed on the AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account to transfer $160,000 into Wilson's Construction Industry Fund private account shared with Ralph Blewitt.

And you know that at the AWU National Finance Committee meeting on 2 August, Wilson was intensely questioned and admitted mixing private and AWU funds in the AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account.

Two days later he's going to be charged.

This post shows you the letter from Bob Smith advising Cambridge about the charges and other correspondence.

The Bank Manager told Cambridge he would not act without both parties who made a claim to the frozen money (Wilson and Bob Smith) being represented by their solicitors, and Ian Cambridge swore that it was Maurice Blackburn for Bob Smith and Slater and Gordon for Wilson.

It's significant, because only in conversation from the bank manager do we hear any explicit recognition of the role of Slater and Gordon.   The firm is not mentioned in any correspondence either to or from the bank instructing it in relation to the frozen money.

What was the nature of the relationship then between the lawyer(s) for Bruce Wilson who the bank manager stated was representing Slater and Gordon and the lawyer who is on the record, in writing representing Bob Smith of the new AWU Victoria Branch, that is John Cain Jr, a partner with Maurice Blackburn?   It's as if Slater and Gordon don't exist in writing and there's only one party to the dispute with one lawyer expressing the instructions of each party!!!

Wilson was told he was going to be charged.  Bob Smith reckoned he'd go to the slammer.   The Bank Manager said Wilson was represented by Slater and Gordon, there's no doubt there's  a dispute, but only one lawyer?   Why did Wilson agree to that?  What did he know about the content of any deal his lawyer had with Maurice Blackburn?

This post shows the letter from John Cain on 17 August confirming the 11AM appointment at the bank and instructing the bank to prepare bank cheques to various companies to be paid out of the account that Wilson had claimed held his private money.  Wilson had asserted property rights to that money by trying to deal with it on 14 July.   Yet the bank accepts instructions from Maurice Blackburn.

Wilson is the signatory to the frozen account.   The Bank was obliged in the absence of other instructions to recognise the signature authority it had on file.   The bank manager had disclosed in discussions with Cambridge that Slater and Gordon represented Wilson yet Cain confirms unilaterally that Wilson will attend, he issues instructions to the bank and nowhere is there mention that Cain does not act for Wilson.   Nowhere is Slater and Gordon mentioned.

Wilson, Collins and Smith co-signed the hand-written letter dated 17 August in the post above instructing the bank to "unfreeze" the AWU Accounts.   This post describes some of the other events of 17 August 1995 for context.

Here's the post showing each of the redundancy cheques.   At least one of the redundancy cheque recipients describes a collective agreement negotiated on Wilson's instructions with Gillard representing him legally.  One of the conditions prior to that person's resignation being submitted was confirmation from the lawyer that the "redundancy" money had been cleared into the bank in Melbourne.   That person states that he believed Gillard was present at the bank and we have the evidence of the bank manager in his conversations with Cambridge that Slater and Gordon was present.

But so trusting was the Slater and Gordon lawyer that no correspondence recording the Slater and Gordon client view was produced.   And the bank manager accepted the written instructions from one firm of lawyers only without the other side demurring.

As you saw above, the deal went ahead and the bank issued the bank cheques.   Ian Cambridge was furious.

You know that every effort was made to stop the redundancy cheques.

On 25 August, Ian Cambridge wrote to the Commonwealth's Bank Manager Peter McArthy.

I'll start a new thread shortly with the correspondence from that point - but I'd appreciate your views and soundings on the propriety of the arrangements you've seen to date.