Vituperating about Lay

The level of vituperation I have received in response to my defense of Lay (also here) has been really remarkable, and wholly unprecedented in the history of this blog. The comments give only part of the story -- I got emails at school (not the address I give on my blog) from people who must have Googled me off of WSJ blog and Forbes without reading my blog posts.  Some day I might share some of this on the blog. I'm certainly saving it for posterity.

[I realize that I invited this to some extent with my attention-getting quote.  Needless to say, I'm going to go back to my usually blander style.]

The many people who think that Lay was worse than a murderer and therefore should be treated as such obviously have bought into what Tom Kirkendall cogently calls the myth of Enron.  Beyond this, I've long recognized that there was a deep vein of anti-capitalist sentiment out there.  Certainly I ran into the same problem in the late 80's when I dared to defend Mike Milken.  If anything, it's gotten worse.   

Where does this come from?  Obviously a lot of it is ingrained.  I've discussed this attitude, and films' contribution to creating it, in my Wall Street & Vine.  As I suggested in my initial post, journalists and politicians share some of the blame for legitimizing the really barbarous thinking that I have seen in the comments and emails. Case in point -- Henry Allen's screed in yesterday's Washington Post (HT Bainbridge).  More subtle, today's WSJ's reference to the erasure of Lay's conviction because he didn't have a chance to appeal as a "quirk."

Now, I'm not lumping in with the vituperation the much calmer and more objective folks who have not bought into the Enron myth, but just think we need some serious deterrence.  I'm dubious about the use of criminal law for the sort of non-Vesco crimes Lay was convicted of, and think that a life sentence for such crimes belongs in the "foolish" category.  But this sort of thinking is protected by what one might call the academic business judgment rule, and it's not the pathology I'm discussing here.

Anyway, I don't know how to cure this pathology, but I suppose I'll keep walking straight into the wind as I have been for years.

Comments

[JLM]

Prof. Ribstein,

Just wanted to note that though it may seem so, you're certainly not alone in your opinion. I'll also add that, being in the federal court house both during and after the trial, the climate here in Houston has been extremely "vituperative."

[Robert Schwartz]

I suppose that few people are taught anymore that speaking ill of the dead is bad form

[Terry]

Prof Ribstein,

Let me share a reality check with you. I worked for Ken Lay. Before Enron existed and well after it was formed. And although I do not know to what degree you had a relationship with him, I would guess I probably knew him as well or better than you.

Lay was 2 people... on the public side he was amiable, kind, charitable, witty, and smart enough to recognize this was a persona that worked to his advantage. On the business side, he was ruthless, self-centered, controlling and vengeful. Yes, vengeful. Just ask any of the dozens he summarily dismissed because they did not agree with him.

He was, as well, dishonest.

Dishonest with his Board, dishonest with his employees, dishonest with his shareholders, and sadly, dishhonest with himself. You apparently consider Lay's dishonesty to be a minor transgression. How sad that you, as a law professor, seem to have no greater sense of ethics than he. No wonder the public's confidence in lawyers ranks right down there with that of a used car salesman.

Lay got, in the end, the same justice he metted out to so many other officers, senior managers and employees at Enron who crossed sabres with him... fear, embarassment, shame, and a career that ended in disgrace. My only regret, like so many others, is that he did not suffer the final justice he deserved... jail.

In case you are wondering, I was not a victim of the Enron debacle so I have no cross to bear in that regard. I did not lose a penny when Enron failed. I simply saw the man for what he was.

I consider myself fortunate to have been blessed with a set of ethics that required I resign my position at Enron long before Lay and Skilling brought the company down. Had I stayed, God only knows where I would be today.

You can whine incessantly about the injustice done to Lay. I challenge you, however, to sit down with the thousands he ruined and walk away unchanged. You should be whining for them.

And to Robert... while speaking ill of the dead may be bad form, the truth hurts only if is should.

[mary]

Terry:
What EXACTLY did Mr. Lay do or say that was dishonest? Please be specific.

[Patty]

Terry,
If one follows your argument, the conclusion/s are that jail is by far worse than death and a more suitable punishment. Does this mean you were against the death penalty for Scott Peterson as well?