Smooth Sailing Forecast for Breyer in Panel’s Hearings : Judiciary: Some senators plan to question high court nominee’s tendency to favor big firms. Little serious opposition is expected.

Anticipating the least contentious confirmation of a Supreme Court justice in 20 years, the Senate Judiciary Committee will open hearings today on the nomination of its former chief counsel, Judge Stephen G. Breyer of Boston.

None of the senators have said that they will oppose the 55-year-old appeals court judge, although a few have said that they intend to put him through a bit of “sensitivity training.”

Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), for example, plans to question Breyer about his tendency to rule in favor of big companies and against smaller competitors in antitrust cases.

“He hopes to sensitize him about the need to protect the little guys,” said Nancy Coffey of the senator’s staff. But even Metzenbaum, who initially criticized President Clinton’s choice of Breyer, has said that he plans to vote to confirm the nominee.

Breyer is also expected to be questioned about a possible conflict-of-interest involving his investment in Lloyd’s of London, an insurer of last resort.

As a judge, Breyer did not rule on cases where Lloyd’s had a clear and direct interest but he did issue several opinions that limited the liability of companies for cleaning up toxic waste dumps. Some of these companies were insured in turn by one of Lloyd’s syndicates, groups of people who assume responsibility for specific risks. White House officials said that Breyer’s personal investments were not affected by those rulings because he was not a member of the syndicate in the case.

For many investors in Britain and the United States, the once-reliable Lloyd’s has proved to be a disastrous investment in recent years. Because those who back Lloyd’s are ultimately liable for covering losses, some wealthy investors have been virtually wiped out when a particular syndicate has been forced to pay for losses related to asbestos or pollution cleanup.

Legal experts are apparently divided over whether Breyer should have removed himself from cases involving the cleanup of toxic wastes. Some have said that, since he had no direct investment in the companies that were parties to the lawsuit, he had no conflict of interest. However, others have maintained that he should have stepped aside because he could have benefited indirectly if Lloyd’s was spared further losses, even if he was not an investor in the specific syndicate.

In his written responses to the Judiciary Committee, Breyer played down the issue. He noted that he has potential further losses of as much as $114,000 stemming from his earlier Lloyd’s investment but he also has insurance of $189,000 to cover possible losses.

Still, the hearing is expected to go smoothly for Breyer because the committee’s Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, enthusiastically praised his nomination.

By contrast, liberal advocates have been lukewarm to Breyer.

“Since 1990, the Supreme Court has lost its three most passionate voices for justice: William J. Brennan Jr., Thurgood Marshall and Harry A. Blackmun,” said Nan Aron, director of Alliance for Justice, a coalition of civil rights and public interest lobbies. “We need a justice (to) carry on their vision . . . and help resurrect the court as a promoter of the rights of and liberties of ordinary Americans.”

While Aron said that she supports Breyer’s nomination, she expressed disappointment that the court now will have no true liberal in the image of Brennan, Marshall or Blackmun.

By his record and reputation, Breyer is a smart, skeptical judge who rules narrowly. As an academic, he made his mark as a critic of far-reaching federal regulation.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has said that he will play the role of skunk at the garden party by testifying against the nomination.

“This guy is a corporate judge who was picked by a corporate lawyer,” Nader said, referring to White House Counsel Lloyd N. Cutler.