In re Glass
58 Cal.4th 500 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for the bar with a history of serious misconduct involving moral turpitude bears a heavy burden to prove rehabilitation, which requires demonstrating truly exemplary conduct over a meaningful period and unwavering candor throughout the admissions process.
Facts:
- Between June 1996 and May 1998, Stephen Randall Glass fabricated material for more than 40 articles for The New Republic and other publications while also attending law school.
- To conceal his deception, Glass created elaborate fraudulent supporting materials, including fake reporter's notes, business cards, a phony website, and induced his brother to impersonate a source.
- Glass's fabrications often included cruel and malicious falsehoods that negatively portrayed individuals, political groups, and ethnic minorities.
- After being caught in 1998, Glass did not fully cooperate with his former employers to identify all his fabrications, leaving the burden of investigation on them.
- In 2002, Glass applied to the New York bar and, in his application, misrepresented the extent of his cooperation with the magazines and failed to provide a complete list of his fabricated articles that had injured others.
- Glass's full list of fabrications was not disclosed until the California State Bar proceedings, over a decade after his misconduct occurred.
- Glass earned a $175,000 advance for a novel based on his experiences, titled 'The Fabulist', and promoted it on the television program '60 Minutes'.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2002, Stephen Glass applied for admission to the New York bar.
- In 2004, after being informally notified that his moral character application would be rejected, Glass withdrew his New York application.
- In 2006, Glass passed the California Bar examination and filed an application for determination of moral character in 2007.
- The Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California denied his application.
- Glass requested a hearing, and in 2010, a State Bar Court hearing judge found he had established good moral character and recommended his admission.
- The Committee of Bar Examiners sought review from the State Bar Court Review Department, an intermediate appellate body within the State Bar.
- A majority of the three-judge Review Department panel affirmed the hearing judge's decision, recommending Glass's admission, with one judge dissenting.
- The matter then came before the Supreme Court of California for a final determination on Glass's application for admission.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a bar applicant who committed prolonged and egregious acts of journalistic fraud, and who subsequently made misrepresentations and omissions during the bar application process, possess the good moral character required for admission to the practice of law?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No. An applicant who has engaged in such egregious and sustained misconduct has not carried his heavy burden of demonstrating rehabilitation and fitness for the practice of law. Glass's conduct as a journalist exhibited moral turpitude sustained over an extended period, involving significant and unremitting deceit motivated by professional ambition. His dishonesty continued after his exposure, particularly in his New York bar application where he misrepresented his cooperation with the magazines he defrauded. Despite extensive therapy, positive character witnesses, and pro bono work, Glass's efforts were primarily self-serving rather than demonstrating 'truly exemplary' conduct that returns something to the community. His testimony at the California State Bar hearing showed continued evasiveness and a failure to take full responsibility, proving he still lacks the fundamental quality of honesty required of an attorney.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an exceptionally high bar for bar applicants seeking to prove rehabilitation after engaging in profound, calculated, and prolonged acts of dishonesty. It signals that moral character for lawyers is not merely about overcoming past mistakes, but about demonstrating an unwavering commitment to truthfulness, especially during the admissions process itself. The court's emphasis on 'truly exemplary conduct' beyond therapy and remorse suggests that applicants with such a history must show extraordinary, selfless service to the community to overcome the strong negative inferences drawn from their past misconduct. The ruling solidifies the principle that honesty is the cornerstone of the legal profession, and a failure to demonstrate it, even years after the initial offense, is disqualifying.
Unlock the full brief for In re Glass