Ben Stein and Bill Lerach

A couple of days ago I wrote about Ben Stein's second silly column on the pending Supreme Court "scheme" liability case. I discussed how Stein avoided the issues, preferring to play the Enron card.  Specifically, Stein discussed an Enron-related case being handled by Bill Lerach that Lerach has been noisily pressing the Court to hear.

In his column Stein blasted Treasury Secretary Paulson for preventing the government from siding with the plaintiff in the pending case. Stein suggested Paulson had a conflict of interest because of his former association with Goldman, a defendant in yet another Enron case.  Stein said "I think it is fair to assume that a clubbable guy like him still has many friends in investment banking."

Speaking of friends, a July 23, 2006 LA Times story (Molly Selvin, "Unsettling Days for King of Class Actions," available for a fee online in the LA Times archives) about Lerach written in the wake of the Milberg indictment quoted a couple of Lerach's friends. It included this tidbit:

Economist and actor Ben Stein described his longtime friend as "not the slightest bit worried" about indictment. "I don't think he's afraid of anything," Stein said."

And why should Lerach be worried if he has "longtime friends" writing for the NY Times?  But perhaps Stein should have mentioned this little fact in his NYT article." In evaluating Stein's argument that the Court should side with the plaintiff, wouldn't readers want to know that Stein's "longtime friend" could have a multi-million-dollar payday if the Court follows Stein's suggestion?  Given Stein's accusation that Paulson was "using his exalted post at Treasury to protect his Wall Street pals," wouldn't readers be interested that Stein has pals, too?

Stein says about Paulson's position, "surely there is an ethical issue there somewhere." Somewhere, Ben? How about writing two prominently featured opinion pieces in the NYT pushing a position that will directly help a friend who is very much in need, without mentioning the connection?

I wonder if Ben got ethics advice from his NYT colleague Randy Cohen?

Comments

I think it's a bit dishonest to compare Ben Stein's conflict with Lerach to the conflicts of the Goldman network put into the government, at least when it comes to (potential) conflicts (like Paulson's) that affect the most important decisions at the highest level of the court system. Ben's just writing in a paper to whomever will listen to (read) him; Paulson's decision will forcibly affect (probably) millions of investors in this country.

I'm reminded of the movie "Supersize Me" in which the narrator's girlfriend makes the logical, but silly, comparison of the addictive qualities of ham to those of heroin. "You can't compare ham to heroin."

[Larry Ribstein]

Neither Paulson's nor Stein's conflict was disabling. It was, in fact, dishonest of Stein to imply that Paulson did have a disabling conflict. The problem with Stein is not that he had a disabling conflict -- he can write about anything he wants, even if it involves his mother. The problem is that he did not disclose a fact that would have enabled readers to evaluate his position. I believe that most legitimate papers, perhaps including the NYT, would require such a disclosure. Whatever the paper's policies, I have seen disclosures of far less relevant facts in the stories and opinion pieces by legitimate journalists.

[Ted]

I don't believe Stein has any obligation of disclosing his relationship with Lerach (I'd be paralyzed if I had to canvas all my attorney friends for potential perceptions of conflicts for disclosures), though I agree it's appalling for Stein to accuse Paulsen of carrying water for Goldman Sachs instead of addressing whether Paulsen has a legitimate point about unfettered liability at the same time Stein has this conflict.

The real problem is that the Times somehow considers Stein to be a conservative when he's regularly parroting the lunatic left's position on these issues. One wouldn't know from any of the Times's coverage that there are legitimate reasons for cabining liability, even as Justice Ginsburg recites those reasons in recent opinions.