San Jose Mercury News legal affairs writer Howard Mintz has a really good piece about the next chapter in Stephen Glass’ long, bumpy road to full professional redemption. It’s happening Wednesday at California Supreme Court in San Francisco.
Glass, for lack of a better analogy, is the Michael Vick of long-form journalism. Since Vick is back in the NFL, perhaps it’s time to allow Glass to finally gain access to the California Bar. In this case, he’s not even to return to the same profession:
The Bar opposes granting a license, arguing that Glass does not meet the “moral character” standards required of lawyers. But two State Bar court decisions have sided with his right to a license, and supporters – from two Washington, D.C., judges to one of the New Republic editors he most defrauded – have vouched for his reformation.
“I have absolutely no doubt he learned a horrible lesson and I have 100 percent confidence this won’t happen again,” said Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown University law professor who has known Glass since he took her law class in 1997.
So many other aspects of this situation are also ripe for discussion. For example, a Hastings College of the Law legal ethics expert tells Mintz that if Glass were someone no one had heard of, he would have been admitted to the California State Bar years ago. The 41-year-old Glass currently resides in Los Angeles and works as a paralegal.
Update (November 7):
LA Times legal affairs reporter Maura Dolan has a colorful summary of what went down in court on Wednesday.
Update (January 27, 2014):
The California Supreme Court has ruled against Glass:
[Image courtesy: Lions Gate Films]
The unanimous seven-judge court ruled that Stephen Glass had insufficiently rehabilitated himself in the years since his misdeeds, saying he “failed to carry his heavy burden of establishing his rehabilitation and current fitness.”