July 10, 2012
As we’ve mentioned, disgraced former journalist Stephen Glass is seeking admission to the California Bar. Last year, the Supreme Court granted the Committee of Bar Examiners’ petition for review challenging Glass’s fitness to practice. This article summarizes Glass’s law school career, his efforts over the last several years to attain Bar membership, and the proceedings that resulted in the Supreme Court’s grant of review. For your consideration, this op-ed piece, that recently ran in both the Los Angeles Times and the Sacramento Bee, advocates that Glass be given a second chance.
Aside from its inherent interest, the case is also noteworthy from a Supreme Court practice perspective. After the Supreme Court grants the Committee’s petition for review of a State Bar Court moral character proceeding, the briefing does not follow the typical sequence of an Opening Brief on the Merits, Answer Brief on the Merits, and Reply Brief on the Merits. Instead, after review is granted, the only further briefing is (1) a “supplemental brief” from the applicant, and (2) a “reply brief” from the Committee. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.15(a).) Glass’s case is now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument. [Full disclosure: Jon B. Eisenberg, who recently re-joined Horvitz & Levy LLP as Of Counsel, is one of the attorneys representing Glass in the Supreme Court. Glass is not a client of the firm.]