- the slush fund had a deceptive name with deceptive objectives, and was advertised deceptively as being for workplace reform. It could be argued that a good lawyer should have been alert to all this.
- the AWU was not informed by Gillard of the misuse of its name by the slush fund. It could be argued that a good lawyer should have done so. It just goes to show what a incompetent sloppy mess she is - no wonder she was an utter disaster as PM.
- Gillard did not have a convincing argument for not opening a file on her work for Wilson. A good lawyer should have opened that file.
- Gillard did not have a convincing explanation for the objectives of the association not clearly stating it was actually for raising money for elections.
