Under ordinary circumstances the decision would be made in consultation with other executives of the corporation who may be familiar with the particular problem involved. But were it a serious enough matter, then it would be called to the attention of other officials in the corporation, or perhaps some of our top committees.

Senator RIBICOFF. How do you explain the lack of communication or the communication gap, so to speak, between whoever ordered this investigation and the detectives who were doing it? The reports were being sent back to General Motors as fast as the investigators were making them, showing up the invasion of Mr. Nader's personal life, the question of what his sexual behavior may be, whether or not he was anti-Semitic, what his grades were in high school, what his grades were in college, what his employment activities were, and all throughout the investigation, very little was showing up concerning his connection with other lawyers involved in litigation with the Corvair.

POSSIBLE NADER LINK WITH CORVAIR LITIGATION

Mr. ROCHE. I am familiar with that now, Mr. Chairman, and I understand that very, very little was indicated. The investigation was undertaken by the general counsel in the belief that Mr. Nader did have some connection, did have a possible connection with the Corvair litigation.

He had been identified through the ATLA Group as a Corvair expert and it had been stated through the ATLA organization, that anybody having an interest in Corvair should contact Mr. Ralph Nader. I think this happened back in the summer of 1965. Subsequently, Mr. Nader's book, or previews of his book, appeared in publications. One I think was in the Nation and the other was in the Charleston Gazette, in which the chapter he devoted to the Corvair was commented upon very extensively. Back in November the general counsel's office believed that it was necessary to try to determine what connection, if any, or interest in the litigation Mr. Nader might have. They first went to his hometown which was in Winsted, Conn., and they were unable to find him in Winsted. They were told at that time that possibly he was in Washington, and made the usual checks through Washington through legal directories as I indicated in the statement, and were unable to find out anything about him. It was after that search had proved fruitless, Mr. Nader's comments, press interviews, TV appearances, and so forth, continued to be very critical of the Corvair, and I think that our general counsel felt that it was his responsibility and duty to attempt to determine whether or not there was any association between Mr. Nader and the Corvair litigation. It was on that basis that the investigation was undertaken. Senator RIBICOFF. Is your general counsel in this room with you today?

Mr. ROCHE. Yes; he is, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. So he will be available for questioning as we go along? Mr. ROCHE. Yes.

RIBICOFF INVESTIGATED

Senator RIBICOFF. By the way, were you aware, Mr. Roche, that the investigators that were hired, when I stated when Mr. Nader appeared

before our subcommittee on February 10 that the first time I had ever seen Mr. Nader was when he walked in to the committee room, was also subject to investigation, as to whether the chairman was telling the truth when he said that he had never seen Nader before?

Mr. ROCHE. I am not aware of that, Mr. Chairman. I am aware of the remarks that you made at your hearing, but I did not know of the other circumstance; no, sir.

IN RE SAWYER CITATION

Senator RIBICOFF. You mentioned on page 3, and I think it is important, the case of: In re Sawyer (360 U.S. 622). I do not suppose you are a legal authority and that your counsel must have put in the quote from that case:

It is impermissible to litigate by day and castigate by night.

Let me read what Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court, really said:

The verbalization is that it is impermissible to litigate by day and castigate by night, *** but to us it seems totally to ignore the charges made and the findings. (360 U.S. 622, 635–636.)

Then the Court concludes:

But it hardly needs elaboration to make it clear that the question of the total insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a serious charge of professional misconduct against the backdrop of the claimed constitutional rights of an attorney to speak freely as any other citizen is not one which can be subsumed under the headings of local practice, customs or law (360 U.S. 622, 640).

Now I think what the court had in mind in the 1959 Sawyer case, Mr. Roche, was what Louis Brandeis once said:

We hear much of the corporation lawyer and far too little of the people's lawyer. The great opportunity of the American Bar is and will be to stand again as it did in the past ready to protect also the interests of the people.

Now the question that you raise in General Motors of your desire not to have your products discussed in public during the course of litigation fails to take into account that the American people do have a right to know, to have discussed, any product or any issue which may affect their lives, their well-being and their health, and Mr. Nader, whether he be a lawyer, a newspaperman, or just any individual, certainly does have the right to write articles, to write a book, to testify before a committee, or to get on a soapbox in the middle of a public park to make a speech about a matter that he believes concerns the well-being of our country. And I do not want you to feel, or want the country to feel, the Supreme Court has laid down a rule that a member of the bar, once he is involved in litigation, is foreclosed from discussing matters of public policy that might be involved in litigaton.

Mr. ROCHE. I am sure that is right, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the purpose of this in the mind of our general counsel, and he will be glad to speak for himself when the proper time comes, was simply to determine whether or not Mr. Nader had any interest beyond acting as an impartial critic of our product. Canon 20 of the Canons of Ethics states that "Precluding newspaper discussion of pending litigation applies not only to discussion in newspapers but to any discussion in a magazine including legal magazines or other publications intended or calculated to influence the decision in a pending case in which the

writer is counsel, and would also include by implication similar radio and TV broadcasts."

Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, but there was no evidence that you gathered that Mr. Nader was counsel in any Corvair litigation, was there?

Mr. ROCHE. Not at any Corvair litigation as I mentioned earlier. The American Trial Lawyer's Association's publications were referring to Mr. Nader as an expert in Corvair affairs, and were suggesting that anybody who had an interest in Corvair litigation contact Mr. Nader and gave his address as I recall it at Winsted, Conn. I think that was the primary reason for our general counsel's feeling that there was a possibility of Mr. Nader having an interest in the Corvair litigation.

Senator RIBICOFF. I have taken up 10 minutes. The rules apply to the chairman, as well as to the members of the committee. I will have some other questions later.

Senator Simpson, do you have any questions?

ROCHE COMMENDED

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with you and associate myself with the remarks made by this testimony of Mr. Roche's. He has been very forthright and helpful. This committee tries so hard to find from the facts and investigation that leads to constructive laws with respect to the United States of America transportation, and it is a little difficult to have to be called outside to trace a side issue down like this. I hope when we have this behind us that we get on with our constructive work.

Mr. Roche, are you still conducting the traffic safety investigation at your various plants that you testified to?

Mr. ROCHE. The traffic safety activities?

Senator SIMPSON. The research.

Mr. ROCHE. Yes; we are engaged in very extensive research, Senator Simpson.

Senator SIMPSON. That is all I have.

Mr. ROCHE. At our proving grounds, and through our engineering and research activities; yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. First, Mr. Roche, let me commend you on your

statement.

Mr. ROCHE. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. I agree with Senator Simpson and the chairman, it is a most forthright statement.

Mr. ROCHE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KENNEDY. It is very helpful to the committee. I am sure it was difficult to make, and therefore all the more commendable. Mr. ROCHE. Thank you, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. I extend my appreciation to you for your efforts to come before the committee and give us all of the facts in connection with this mater, and I commend your candor and your honesty in doing so.

Mr. ROCHE. Thank you, sir.

GENERAL MOTORS STATEMENT OF MARCH 9, 1966

Senator KENNEDY. There are a few questions that I would like to ask. First, going back to the General Motors statement that was made originally, that is a matter of some concern to me. At the time this in

vestigation originally was written about in the newspaper, a statement was put out I believe by you. Would you agree that the statement that was put out on, I guess, March 9, 1966, a statement issued by General Motors, was misleading about the facts in connection with this matter?

EXHIBIT 116

STATEMENT OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

General Motors said today that following the publication of Mr. Ralph Nader's criticisms of the Corvair in writings and public appearances in support of his book "Unsafe at Any Speed," the office of its general counsel initiated a routine investigation through a reputable law firm to determine whether Ralph Nader was acting on behalf of litigants or their attorneys in Corvair design cases pending against General Motors. The investigation was prompted by Mr. Nader's extreme criticism of the Corvair in his writings, press conferences, TV and other public appearances. Mr. Nader's statements coincided with similar publicity by some attorneys handling such litigation.

It is a well known and accepted practice in the legal profession to investigate claims and persons making claims in the product liability field, such as in the pending Corvair design cases.

The investigation was limited only to Mr. Nader's qualifications, background, expertise and association with such attorneys. It did not include any of the alleged harassment or intimidation recently reported in the press. If Mr. Nader has been subjected to any of the incidents and harassment mentioned by him in newspaper stories, such incidents were in no way associated with General Motors' legitimate investigation of his interest in pending litigation.

At General Motors' invitation, Mr. Nader spent a day at the GM Technical Center, Warren, Michigan, early in January visiting with General Motors executives and engineers. He was shown a number of engineering and research testing and development programs in the field of automotive safety. A number of the accusations in his book were discussed at length, and a presentation was made of the evidence used in the successful defense of the only two Corvair lawsuits tried.

Mr. Nader expressed appreciation for the courtesy in providing him with detailed information, but he nevertheless continued the same line of attack on the design of the Corvair in a number of subsequent press conferences, TV and other appearances. This behavior lends support to General Motors' belief that there is a connection between Mr. Nader and plaintiffs' counsel in pending Corvair design litigation.

Mr. ROCHE. I suppose, Senator Kennedy, that had I known or had we known at the time what I know now, I suspect that the wording of the statement might have been somewhat different.

Senator KENNEDY. My point is that if we just take this statement, that had been made by General Motors, and take the newspaper articles which first brought this matter to light, then taking the statement had the chairman not called a hearing, really the public and the newspapers would have been misled. Mr. Nader's honesty and integrity would have been seriously questioned, if we had not gone on with this hearing, and if you had not made this frank and forthright statement which you have made before this committee. There would have been serious questions raised about not only the newspaper articles and the individuals who wrote those articles, but also Mr. Nader's integrity. Do you agree with that?

GENERAL INTENT OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. ROCHE. Possibly that intepretation could be placed upon that, Senator. However, I think the statement represented the general intent of the investigation at that time.

Now, since then, I have learned that in the approach to the investigation, there had to be some basis for making the investigation. It was the judgment of the people who were arranging the investigation that a preemployment type investigation would be made, and that is the kind of an investigation that was undertaken. In the course of that investigation, apparently some areas were probed in a very unfortunate way as it turns out. To that extent I would say that had we known and had I seen the reports at all at the time this was made, the full detail of all the reports of the investigation, that possibly this wording could have been changed to

Senator KENNEDY. Can I just give you-for instance-what was said and what was put in the Congressional Record, and what was broadcast all over the country. It states that:

General Motors said today that following the publication of Mr. Ralph Nader's criticisms of the Corvair in writings and public appearances in support of his book "Unsafe at Any Speed," the office of its general counsel initiated a routine investigation through a reputable law firm to determine whether Ralph Nader was acting on behalf of litigants or their attorneys in Corvair design cases pending against General Motors.

It was certainly an investigation that went quite beyond that.

Mr. ROCHE. Well, as I have indicated, Senator Kennedy, to our knowledge many of the items of harassment which had been alleged did not occur as a result of any investigation that was made by

NOT A ROUTINE INVESTIGATION

Senator KENNEDY. Would you say now that this was a routine investigation to determine whether Mr. Nader was acting on behalf of litigants or their attorneys?

Mr. ROCHE. I would say, Senator Kennedy, that it is not a routine investigation insofar as General Motors is concerned, but it is my understanding that this is considered a routine investigation of potential witnesses in connection with litigation that may be of interest to a defendant.

Senator KENNEDY. There is some inconsistency, it seems to me, if you say in this statement that it was a routine investigation on behalf of litigants or their attorneys in Corvair design cases pending against General Motors, and then in your statement today admit that there was a good deal of harassment, and that the investigation went beyond what you had thought should take place, and apologize to Mr. Nader. Mr. ROCHE. That is right.

Senator KENNEDY. This statement is inconsistent with that?

Mr. ROCHE. I think that it is inconsistent to that extent; yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Then your release states:

The investigation was limited only to Mr. Nader's qualifications, background, expertise and association with such attorneys.

That statement really as it turns out is not accurate.

Mr. ROCHE. That was the intent of the statement, and the intent of the investigation.