The Australian today publishes, in “Gillard under fire: ‘We gave her the benefit of the doubt’”, a “draft of a statement by Peter Gordon, former partner at law firm Slater & Gordon”. Anonymous sources have sent us what may be an earlier draft (with names changed to protect the possibly guilty) of that statement:
This statement tries to settle disquiet raised in the media in recent weeks concerning the departure from Sletar & Grodno in 1995 of Giulia Lameduck. It is no secret that Giulia Lameduck was paid handsomely for having an office in the industrial department of Sletar & Grodno from 1990 to 1995. She also liaised with the Victorian state branch of the UWA from 1991 until 1995, and had lots of long, expensive lunches and dinners with two of its officials, Mr Brace Wolsin and Mr Rulph Bliwett.
It is no secret that Ms Lameduck and a colleague, Barnerd Myrphu, left the firm in late 1995 after the rest of the partners realised how shonky they were, and how likely we might in future be embroiled in criminal prosecutions and adverse publicity. We had concerns about the legality of the way in which Ms Lameduck and Mr Myrphu had acted in helping Mr Wolsin shaft the UWA and its members.
On my recollection of events:
We made no attempt to find evidence which explicitly or even indirectly controverted the explanation Ms Lameduck made at the time and has made publicly since as to her dealings with Mr Wolsin, that she had been “naïve” and had been “taken in by a conman”.Nonetheless, most of us in the firm wanted the lying slag to resign, and she did resign after telling us that we’d better keep our mouths shut about these matters, and publicly support her version of events, or she’d have some hefty labourers pop around to our respective homes early one morning with serious sledgehammers and shovels and the like withal.
Ms Lameduck consistently denied participating in any wrongdoing, which is hardly the conduct of a guilty person, surely.
Ms Lameduck has continued to assert her innocence over later years, which is hardly the conduct of a guilty person, surely.
The nature of the wrongdoings alleged required us, if we were to take an adverse view of Ms Lameduck in relation to these events, to believe that she had knowingly participated in a fraud, and deliberately deceived her partners for a year or more thereof, and that could not have been the case in a big law firm with lots of really smart lawyers, now, could it?