Justice Ron Merkel
I'm delighted to be participating in the 'Talking Histories' series. Our indigenous Australians have been talking histories for over 50,000 years ' it's therefore forgivable for one of our more recent civilisations to do so after only 5,800 years.
More seriously, in my capacity as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, in native title cases I have had to deal with the tension between the value placed on written history in our Anglo Australian Culture and the value placed on oral history by Aboriginal culture. Written material often presents a very different history than oral accounts. In endeavouring not to undervalue either I realised that much of the difference arises from the perspective from which events are seen.
Well, my perspective as a story teller tonight is that of a very young solicitor who worked closely with Arnold Bloch in his solicitor's practice from 1963 to 1967 ' a small window, but an important period in Arnold's professional development. I was also told by his wife Elaine that it was one of Arnold's happiest professional periods.
Let me start with a little pre-history - ie history before my time with Arnold. Arnold graduated in Arts and Law from Cambridge and Melbourne Universities with First Class Honours. He was admitted to his practice on 3 March 1952. In his 20s he commenced practice on his account in Elizabeth Street in the city in 1954. In 1958 he moved to Ripponlea. Arnold's practising certificate cost 2 guineas. It was a humble start for Arnold -there he was with one shared typist.
It was not long before his first client - Polisher Jewish - would you believe - came with what was then Arnold's most important case . . . or put another way...his only case. The client had been bitten by a dog - he wanted justice and got it. Arnold won his case. Then came the time for the bill - One Guinea. The client exclaimed 'Mr Bloch a Gunser Guinea''for the uninitiated like me the client was mortified that it cost him a 'whole' Guinea.
Arnold's practice developed over time as did his legal capacity. It was not long before his practice moved back to the city. It is fair to say that he was never was too big for his clients, particularly his early clients, who were rewarded with his unstinting and unwavering loyalty.
However, many of Arnold's clients were something again. He enjoyed telling the story about another Polisher who he took to a conference with Trevor Rapke -then a leading barrister and later a County Court Judge. Mr Rapke outlined two possible scenarios to the client. He said 'If the scenario is such and such you lose. On the other hand if the scenario is such and such you win'. To which the client instantly replied 'Mr Rapke whatever you say I'll say'.
Arnold knew his clients well. His first advice to me when I started with him as an articled clerk in 1963 was 'Beware of my clients, particularly the client who says - 'Mr Bloch, I want a contract with the other side bound, but for me a little loophole will do.'. Arnold instructed me that such clients must be nipped in the bud and told there are only two way, not one way, contracts.
Of course, Arnold was highly intelligent, knew his law and had the capacity to articulate it. Indeed, so much so that most of his clients held him in awe. Joan McLaren, an extraordinarily competent conveyancing clerk who was with Arnold's firm in the late 1950's through to the mid 1980's told me that clients, who were never short on expressing their views, would sit in conferences with her and Arnold and listen in silent amazement at his knowledge. As soon as they went back to her office they'd say 'Now Ms McLaren what exactly did he say?'.
But there was also another side to Arnold in his practice. He attracted great loyalty from his staff who, Joan McLaren tells me, used to refer to him behind his back as 'Father' ' not because he was the great patriarch ' but because he was a great reproducer who had 4 1/2 kids at the time.
By the early 1960's Arnold ran a very busy conveyancing factory at his city office. When I first stepped into Arnold's world in 1963 his office was in Lonsdale Street and he had nine staff, including me. He was a sole practitioner running three or four secretaries, conveyancers, bookkeeper, title office clerk and then me, his articled clerk. He told me I was the best articled clerk he ever had. Any chance of me being flattered came to an abrupt end when I was quickly told by the staff that he had only one previous articled clerk, which had been a bit of a disaster for both the articled clerk and Arnold.
For me Arnold was a fascinating man. We came from different worlds, different pasts and had quite different backgrounds and values but we got on well. How I got there was a story in itself. At the time articles for students who had no special contacts in the law were arranged by the Melbourne University Law School. I attended my interview at the Law School - 'the first question was my religion. I said what's that got to do with articles. The law school interviewers were embarrassed but tried to explain that some firms had religious 'preferences'. I protested that it was not the role of the law school to engage in religious preference, or more bluntly, in religious bigotry.
I told the Hillel Director at Melbourne University at the time - Rabbi Rackovsky - of my experience. He said 'what is new? - but have I got a match for you'. And that is how I came to be interviewed by Arnold Bloch for a position as his articled clerk.
To some Arnold may have appeared a little pompous or arrogant. However, it was not long before it was apparent to me that he was essentially a very shy person and that often his shyness was misunderstood. Earlier I said that my window of time in the practice was short but important. The practice grew from the staff of nine when I started in 1963 to a staff of from some 35 when I left in 1967 for other pastures. Arnold was still a sole practitioner and I was still his only qualified lawyer. He had however pluralised me - the firm name had become 'Arnold Bloch and Associates'.
The practice had expanded from a conveyancing and mortgage practice to a fast growing general commercial practice. As Arnold's clients grew so did his practice. He was a first class corporate and trust lawyer and he understood and met his client's needs as their businesses became more complex and the legal structures they required became more sophisticated. He could rightly be called one of the early promoters of the discretionary family trust - a lawful vehicle which offered his clients tax, commercial and family flexibility - until the parents fell out with the children. The clients said - God beheed such a thing should happen'. Arnold responded wisely that even with God it can happen.
Also, the practice started expanding well beyond the Jewish community as Arnold's repute and respect spread. Lensworth Finance was the first of many public companies that went to Arnold. It was a remarkable achievement for him to be able to supervise the growth of the practice in the manner in which he did - but yet retain a rigid control over its standards of excellence, which he insisted had to be maintained. He set a high standard for himself and his staff and that standard was met. Arnold had quickly earned and retained the respect and admiration of his peers in the legal community.
Arnold developed an excellent rapport and relationship with Victoria's leading barristers. He regularly briefed Ninian Stephen - later a High Court Judge and Governor-General, Ivor Greenwood - later Commonwealth Attorney-General - Brian Shaw later one of Australia's most eminent tax banisters and Jeffrey Sherr - later one of Australia's most eminent common lawyers. Arnold prepared for and looked forward to conferences with his banisters. He mastered his topic, knew the subject on which he was seeking their advice and had prepared his opinion in advance. The conference was more a gladiatorial contest between Arnold and the barrister - with the client a passive and often bewildered observer. At the end of the conference Arnold usually prevailed with the barrister agreeing with Arnold's opinion. The clients got great value for money.
I must say I always thought Arnold would have loved to be at the Bar. He once confided in me that had he not had his family commitments so early in his career he probably would have gone to the Bar. I have no doubt that he would have been a first class banister. His ability to grasp the essence of a legal problem and deal with it, without being distracted by side issues, was a capacity that was self evident in the way he managed his practice and in the way he dealt with his banisters and clients.
Notwithstanding his shyness Arnold did develop his social skills as he worked with and wooed his growing clientele. His working and wooing was by displaying his obvious competence, intelligence and legal talent - he was not one to be patronising, flattering or pushing the hyperbole. The relationship which he developed with the clients was one of complete trust. In return he expected loyalty. It was intriguing for me to see how hurt he was when sometimes that loyalty was not returned. Just as he was starting to get business from some large public companies some of his oldest clients, who were themselves about to undertake a public company float, went to the old Anglo Saxon establishment firms in Melbourne because they thought that the so-called 'appearance' of it all might be better for them.
There was some irony in all that for me. I was a little shocked when Arnold sometimes insisted on a very establishment Anglo-Saxon barrister - sometimes of unexceptional competence - the more 'Yiddisher' the client. I disagreed with Arnold's principle but may be that was the way things were in the pre Race Discrimination Act establishment and institutional Australia of the 1960s.
Arnold did not complain about his recalcitrant public company clients. Rather, he became even more determined to show those clients that his practice was capable of dealing with all of their legal problems. His use of corporations, family discretionary trusts and other legal vehicles for growing commercial businesses led to him being a leader in those fields, as indeed he had also been in conveyancing.
That brings me up to about 1967 when I thought it was time for me to move on. At that stage I was only in my mid 20s and ready to roam the world, rather than become a solicitor in Queen Street Melbourne where Arnold then was. I left the practice on excellent terms with Arnold. Our ways parted but I have always retained my respect and admiration for Arnold as a first class professional who set a first class example in the legal community of integrity, competence and legal creativity. With qualities like that at the beginning - and Arnold's organisation skills - it is no wonder that the firm continued to expand to become one of Melbourne's leading firms. It currently has 22 partners, some 60-70 solicitors and a total of about 200 staff, including the partners and solicitors.
I was very sad to hear of Arnold's departure from the practice in the 1981 . I was distant from
those events and can make no comment about them. Even more sadly Arnold died in March
1985, 33 years after his admission to practice.
I now wish to return from where I started tonight on the value of 'Talking histories'. To assist me in my talking history I obtained some written history an ABL ' Arnold Bloch Leibler - firm brochure. It was glossy and told me all about the firm's great skills in most contemporary areas of law. Its who's who told me about all of today's ABL men and women ' but next to nothing of the past.
So there you are. I make no criticism of the firm or of its marketing brochures. But it all helps to make the poignant point that may be tonight's occasion has presented us with a small but useful example of what 'Talking histories', with their anecdotes and personalisation, can be about. They give a flavour that helps expose the essence of the person of whom we are talking.
I'll look forward to your contributions. Thank you.