Hubris alive and well on hill

Insight on the News, March 4, 2002 by Jennifer G. Hickey

Michael LaRock has learned an invaluable lesson about hubris. So confident was he of his abilities to stay one step ahead of the police -- he already had escaped from the scene of his crimes in New York to his home in Georgia -- LaRock placed a boastful telephone call to authorities in the Empire State. Perhaps with a little more thought the 22-year-old pilferer would have considered the possibility that police might have caller-ID that would expose his location. They did, and when LaRock phoned to needle the New York cops a second time, they heard his doorbell ring -- it was Georgia police, who promptly arrested him.

Arrogance by individuals with ill-gotten gains is not limited to LaRock. Former Enron chief Kenneth Lay, having cleverly (as he thought) tasked his wife to reform his public image on national television, apparently reached the conclusion that simply declining invitations to appear before congressional committees (and blaming the rough rhetoric of lawmakers appearing on the Sunday talk shows for his having done so) sounded like a fine idea. The resulting subpoenas quickly issued from House and Senate committees indicated it was not such a fine idea after all.

Hubris of a more homespun variety also might have been involved when the mellifluous Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, accused the Bush administration of "cash-and-carry" government, falsely alleging administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, had ties to Enron and calling for the appointment of a special counsel. Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Patrick Leahy of Vermont both declared a special prosecutor unnecessary, and fellow Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York suggested at a press conference that some in the party risked overplaying their hands.

While political posturing continued, so too did the hearings (sans Lay), with compelling testimony coming from William Powers, the University of Texas Law School dean whose detailed examination of the company's financial fakery likely caused Lay to lawyer up. Less forthcoming testimony was provided by Arthur Andersen Chief Executive Officer Joseph Berardino, who offered little more information than had been provided in newspaper ads being run by the firm. Several House members on both sides of the aisle conducted insistent and informed questioning however, eliciting some worthwhile nuggets.

But given the number of politicians hopping on and off their high horses, it was not surprising that Berardino and the Enron men of few words found themselves trampled and stomped. Nor was it astonishing that some tried to frame every public issue as somehow reflecting Enronesque fraud, dishonesty or greed.

During a Feb. 6 hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on the Class Action Fairness Act, a measure to permit more interstate class-actions to be filed in federal courts, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) contended he was "shocked" that the panel was considering a bill to "make it easier for corporations, their lawyers and their accountants to engage in fraud and deceit." Never mind that the proposal neither would alter substantive law nor stop individuals from taking claims to state courts. The Enron comparison was not only specious but ludicrous given the cases being lined up against the former energy giant. Committee member Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) explained that the proposal would place the suits in federal court "without limiting anyone's rights to bring class-action lawsuit or changing anyone's rights to recovery."

But some are using Enron, and the Erin Brockovich case before it, to try to shape the debate about class action and tort reform in terms of "good versus evil" and "rich versus poor." With millions in state and federal political contributions pushing cases into the courts, some analysts question whether it is the victims or the lawyers reaping the benefits.

Karen Ignagni of the American Association of Health Plans says, "It is my hope, particularly with the economy turning down, that more members of Congress are going to look at the impact of class actions on society in general. If you match the campaigns by the trial lawyers with the rhetoric, I think you oftentimes find that in the suits undertaken on behalf of people, the plaintiffs actually receive very little."

Furthermore, Ignagni insists, Congress "has to take a look carefully through the rhetoric and decide whether the class actions are moving us in the direction of solving problems" and providing appropriate relief in the system. Jeff Lungren, House Judiciary Committee spokesman, believes the bill will "be taken up in the next few months, and it should pass." But he could not assign a specific time for action.

Radical action, not class actions, will be the focus at Feb. 12 hearings of the House Resources subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Chaired by Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), the panel will focus on the threat posed and damage caused by ecoterrorists -- environmentalists who view vandalism and violence as appropriate means to achieve their ends. Although the actions of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and its sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), receive scant coverage beyond local and Western media, the damage done in recent years has been considerable and has not decreased since Sept. 11.