November 4, 2013
Articles examine arguments for and against allowing disgraced journalist Stephen Glass to be admitted to the California Bar
As we noted here, on Wednesday the Supreme Court will be hearing In re Glass on Admission, S196374. There, the Court will consider whether disgraced former journalist Stephen Glass, who fabricated numerous articles that ran in magazines such as the New Republic and Rolling Stone in the 1990’s, has been sufficiently rehabilitated that he should be admitted to the California Bar.
For those following this story, here is an article by Howard Mintz in the San Jose Mercury News, in which he describes Glass as a “true villain” in the journalism world, then surveys the arguments for and against his admission to practice law. And here is a Los Angeles Times editorial that asserts “[t]he court should grant Glass the license and allow him to hang up his shingle.” The Times’ editorial board writes that it “shares [the Committee of Bar Examiners’] disapproval” of Glass’s journalistic misconduct, but asserts that “if prospective lawyers are to be screened for ‘moral character’ (as opposed to merely abiding by the law), then the serious efforts they’ve made to rehabilitate themselves ought to be part of the calculation.” Noting Glass’s significant efforts at redemption, and the several character witnesses who favor his admission, the Times takes the position that the Court “should let prospective clients decide whether Glass’ long-ago journalistic sins disqualify him from representing them.”
UPDATE: Here is Maura Dolan’s LA Times piece on today’s oral argument, during which the justices pretty clearly appeared not to favor Glass’s admission to practice law in California.