Top Appellate Reversals: In re Glass on Admission

If Stephen Glass taught us anything, it's that the price of redemption is high, no more so than in the eyes of the law.

As a young reporter in the late 1990s, Glass fabricated in whole or in part dozens of articles. Among other things, he falsely accused a customer service representative of making a racial slur; wrote that young Republicans were giving up politics and turning to sex and drugs; and quoted African-Americans as saying they were unwilling to take on meaningful employment.

He was eventually caught and exposed, and thus began a decade of soul searching. He went to intensive therapy, graduated from Georgetown Law School, and won glowing reviews from judges for whom he had clerked and the law firm where he works as a paralegal.

But Glass' past haunted his efforts to become a licensed attorney.

At oral argument, the justices suggested Glass had not done enough to redeem himself.

Justice Carol Corrigan wondered why he hadn't volunteered at a shelter. Former Justice Joyce L. Kennard questioned why he didn't pay back his salary to The New Republic, the magazine where most of his articles appeared. And former Justice Marvin R. Baxter noted that some of the government officials involved in the Watergate scandal devoted their lives to the ministry - suggesting Glass could have taken a similar step.

In January 2014, the court unanimously rejected Glass' bid for licensure.

His actions as a journalist were "motivated by professional ambition, betrayed a vicious, mean spirit and a complete lack of compassion for others, along with arrogance and prejudice against various ethnic groups," the court wrote.

"In all these respects, his misconduct bore directly on his character in matters that are critical to the practice of law."

But while the justices made the case sound easy, Glass's bid for a law license divided ethicists, lawyers and even the reporters and editors whom Glass defrauded. The former owner of The New Republic supported his admission to the bar; the magazine's former editor, who unearthed the deceit, opposed it.

Glass has refused to talk to the media. His attorney, Jon B. Eisenberg, declined to speak for this article, except to say, "I expressed my heartfelt feelings about Stephen Glass when I presented oral argument before the California Supreme Court and I see nothing to be gained by replowing that ground."

Eisenberg passionately argued at oral argument that Glass had taken every step necessary to reform himself and that he was, simply put, a different person than when he fabricated articles. How long must one pay for the sins of his past, he asked.

The State Bar's Rachel S. Grunberg, in her first oral argument before the state Supreme Court, maintained Glass had not shown the rehabilitation necessary to become an attorney. She said Glass should have given lectures to journalism students about his misdeeds and become a pillar in his community in the years since his lies were exposed.

"The practice of law is a privilege - not a right, in California anyway," Grunberg said.

"As a human being I think we can all sympathize that [Glass] has had his tough times," she said. "But I think the court's decision is right."

- EMILY GREEN