Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Stephen Glass is the serial fabulist who worked for Andrew Sullivan at The New Republic in the 1990s. He made up sources, their quotes, even complete stories. You can read this Vanity Fair piece or watch the movie Shattered Glass for more details. I hear that Glass' "novel" is a rather self-serving explanation of the events surrounding his downfall.
Anyway, he went to law school and passed the New York bar exam. He withdrew his application to practice law in New York, however, when he realized he was going to be denied on moral considerations. Now he's trying to gain entrance to the California bar. And facing a little bit of trouble.
Joe Nocera opines in the New York Times:
He is 39 now, nearly 14 years removed from the events that made him infamous. You remember those events, don’t you? In his early 20s, as a staff writer for The New Republic, Glass committed one of the most egregious journalistic hoaxes of all time, writing an astonishing 42 articles over a two-and-a-half-year span that were either partially or entirely fabricated. For The New Republic, Rolling Stone, Harper’s and others, he turned in articles that had made-up characters, invented dialogue and imaginary scenes. When the truth came out, it was a huge scandal; Glass’s journalism career was, quite properly, destroyed.
But should the rest of his life also be destroyed? That, apparently, is the view of the Committee of Bar Examiners, which vets bar applicants for the State Bar of California. Given how Glass has turned his life around (more about that in a minute), it is a little hard to understand its resistance. So far, the committee has lost in two separate judicial proceedings, but it continues to press on, making this last-ditch appeal to the California State Supreme Court. I e-mailed John P. McNicholas III, the committee chairman, to ask him why his group was being so petty and vindictive.
I'm curious what you all think. Were Glass' crimes so bad that the shouldn't be allowed to practice law? How do we know if he's demonstrated contrition? What's the evidence? What's the harm in permitting a serial fabulist to practice law?
I really bristle against the notion that Glass' life would be destroyed, as Nocera put it, if he weren't permitted to practice law. Come on. There are countless other things he could do.
And I remember the people -- the conservatives -- that Glass' lies hurt. I remember the lies about conservative functions and events he spread. I am not even satisfied that he's actually contrite. On the other hand, I am permitted to write even though I plagiarized something significant in high school.
What should be the guiding principles for determining how to proceed here?
- Comment (69)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
That was my thought too. Absurd to think of not allowing someone to practice law means destroying his life.
He excluded himself from a profession that is practically speaking a kind of social embodiment of rectitude by his egregious dishonestly and betrayal of the public trust.
No reason why he can't write fiction though. Or work in one of the countless professions that doesn't rely on public trust.
Jun '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Many lawyers have been disbarred for far less. I would never suggest that my profession is a bastion of probity (though I would argue that the vast majority of lawyers take their moral obligations seriously), but I fully support excluding Glass.
One has to wonder who was advising Glass on his decision to go to law school--they should have seen this coming. How many professions are there in our economy? The argument that being excluded from one would destory his life is absurd. Most of us self-exlude ourselves from vast numbers of professions in the sciences by not seriously studying math or from being a doctor by doing crappy in biology. Yet we somehow find fulfillment and employment in life.
Edited on December 27, 2011 at 8:32pmAug '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Miss Hemingway, You mentioned that Glass' lies hurt people. No. I really don't think that's comparable to high school plagiarism. Glass should earn his living some other way.
Jul '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
We were kicked out of med school for cheating. No excuses, no exceptions. When a chance occurs to prevent licensing someone guaranteed to discredit the profession then that licensing entity is obliged to act. His behavior is not something that changes for the positive over time. I'm in a book club with 8 lawyers(like being raised by wolves in some sense) and I will ask them at our next soiree what they think is acceptable here. I am curious if any vote in his favor.
Dec '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Mr. Glass had a very public downfall and airing of his offenses. While they didn't carry the additional stigma of jail time, his dishonesty was on full display - not easily forgotten.
My understanding is that the legal profession puts forth more effort than any other around ethics. It doesn't always take, and the profession attracts many people who violate those ethics. But when the Board is presented with someone wanting to enter the profession who has already demonstrated an horrendous disregard of ethical behavior it would seem to me perfectly logical to exclude that candidate.
I suppose there is the concept of redemption and forgiveness, but even if an embezzler is redeemed and forgiven, he should never again be allowed into a profession where he handles money. Someone who is a proven liar should not be allowed into a profession where there is an expectation of honesty.
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
For some reason, the name Michael Bellesiles comes to mind.
Jan '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Well, I'm going to take the other view on this one.
While we're at it, though, I don't think that Stephen Glass is claiming that his life would be destroyed - that comes from Joe Nocera's casting of the story. So (not that anyone has) there might be a temptation to castigate Glass for that claim, even though he really didn't say that himself.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that a professional committee is going to evaluate someone's moral competence. A professional committee might be competent to evaluate Glass' command of the law, or his ability to practice ... but are they really qualified to judge his moral standing? If they have new information about recent moral turpitude, OK, that's one thing. But if it's their verdict on what happened 14 years ago, for which the legal system itself allowed Glass to walk free (the same legal system this committee presumes to serve), then I can't find much logic to their decision.
The only way to justify it is to claim that lawyers should be above the law ... and that seems utterly self-contradictory, don't you think?
Edited on December 27, 2011 at 6:39pmMar '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
But isn't there a certain public benefit to isolating him in a profession where his ethical lapses are unlikely to catch people by surprise?
Aug '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
I bet Rahm could help him out in Illinois!
Oct '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
"According to Ray and other sources, Glass has been working at a small law firm, apparently in a paralegal capacity." - Postscript
So apparently he has a job. I have seen references to Stephen Glass over the years but either didn't know or remember the whole story. I don't see how someone who was willing to lie as consistently and malicious as he did could become an attorney.
You could just never be sure that you could trust him.
May '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
KC Mulville:
I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that a professional committee is going to evaluate someone's moral competence. A professional committee might be competent to evaluate Glass' command of the law, or his ability to practice ... but are they really qualified to judge his moral standing?
Every profession that involves an essential component of trust involves, inescapably, the necessity of evaluating trust-worthiness. To decline to judge the moral condition of applicants would be dereliction of duty, IMO.
"The honorable practice of the law" can only be conducted rightly by honorable people. Members of the bar are custodians of a public trust. They have a duty to the public and to their profession to uphold high moral standards.
Declaring a person unfit to practice law because of his well-deserved reputation for dishonesty is not to condemn him to hell. The state of his soul is between him and God. The state of the law profession is in the hands of lawyers.
Jan '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
katievs
"The honorable practice of the law" can only be conducted rightly by honorable people. Members of the bar are custodians of a public trust. They have a duty to the public and to their profession to uphold high moral standards.
As a general point, I agree.
But the story says that the decision has been reversed, or overturned ... in two judicial proceedings. In the court of law, the committee has lost ... twice. The committee is now turning to appeal to the California State Supreme Court.
Seems to me, if the committee's decision is brushed aside, the committee itself becomes pointless. Are they fighting for an abstract principle of trustworthiness, or are they just fighting to regain their own relevance at Glass' expense?
It seems to me that the law is already taking care of its own business; using the same principles that it applies to everyone else. And in court, the committee is losing. They're the ones pressing the appeal.
Edited on December 27, 2011 at 7:11pmMar '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
In spite of the jokes and jibes directed at lawyers, the overwhelming majority are honorable and honest people. We take our ethical responsibilites and those of our colleagues very seriously. It's Glass' own narcissism that made him think he could waltz into whatever profession he deemed himself fit to practice, and his own fault that he reeks of moral turpitude. The Bar is correct, and is indeed obligated, to deny Glass' application.
Apr '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
It would be nice if there was more substance about the committee's stance (other than for being petty and vindictive). Mr. Glass seems to have a stack of character references on his side, but the committee continues to be concerned about matters beyond truthfulness (of which I would be satisfied at stopping there), but also the fact that he never sought to compensate those harmed by his fabrications. It is important that these professional committees exist to judge the moral character of applicants, to at least set a floor for conduct. These are the cases that demonstrate the purpose of these bodies and it is appropriate to press this point - in a system that relies on the veracity of information and candor of communications is this man reliable without oversight? I have to wonder at the concept of his "autobiographical novel." Just what the heck is that? You would think that for a man caught in the mddle of such deceptions that his book on the subject would at least be an attempt at a forthright accounting rather than a further fantasy. I can appreciate the committee's skepticism.
May '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
It strikes me that the notion of "moral turpitude" is absent from the discussion. An edited note from GA legal discussion regarding turpitude; “does the [crime/act], disregarding its punishment, meet the test as being contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, good morals or man’s duty to man?” [Italics indicate an edit on my part.]
Well, we know he isn't honest, nor is he modest, nor has he shown "good morals" or a sense of justice in the past, and he has not demonstrated a knowledge of "man's duty to man". So, no, he shouldn't be allowed to practice law. And were I a lawyer employing him as a paralegal, I would be concerned at the cost of checking the result of his legal research for fabrication, omission, etc.
Let him write novels where fabrication is, at least, expected.
May '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
It strikes me that the notion of "moral turpitude" is absent from the discussion. An edited note from GA legal discussion regarding turpitude; “does the [crime/act], disregarding its punishment, meet the test as being contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, good morals or man’s duty to man?” [Italics indicate an edit on my part.]
Well, we know he isn't honest, nor is he modest, nor has he shown "good morals" or a sense of justice in the past, and he has not demonstrated a knowledge of "man's duty to man". So, no, he shouldn't be allowed to practice law. And were I a lawyer employing him as a paralegal, I would be concerned at the cost of checking the result of his legal research for fabrication, omission, etc.
Let him write novels where fabrication is, at least, expected.
May '10
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
I don't understand the logic of those that insist he is welcome to earn his living in any way he pleases -- just not practicing law. He went to law school and passed the exam. What makes the law so precious. What is the basis for determing that this profession is so sacrosanct. Who are these examiners to sit in such righteous judgement? They can't possibly be actual lawyers.
Let his clients and/or employer decide if they don't think he should practice. This is absurd and I hope he goes to court and whips the committee-members smug, self-righteous sneers right off their anonymous faces.
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Having worked at a couple of large Manhattan law firms, my first reaction was: This guy is partnership material.
But then, I think Great Adventure has it right. The profession has to protect its reputation. When somebody makes a career out of deceiving the public, admission to the Bar shouldn't be the next step.
Apr '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Trace Urdan Let his clients and/or employer decide if they don't think he should practice. This is absurd and I hope he goes to court and whips the committee-members smug, self-righteous sneers right off their anonymous faces. *** A key point of these committees is to protect the public and consumers, because legal services are often expensive and are often needed at times of critical necessity. That is not only the nature of the state bar, but of any professional licensing body. The actions of the corrupt do as much harm as the merely incompetent (and perhaps more in undermining confidence in institutions). There is a fundamental difference between technical competence as reflected by testing and having the character necessary of hold confidences, act on behalf of (and in the best interests of) the client, and to maintain trust and confidence in the institutions of the law. We cannot discern that in advance with regard to the majority of applicants, because they have little record. Misconduct makes itself apparent over time. Here the misconduct is known, it is serious, and it goes to the heart of the lawyer's role. Right or wrong, the committee is properly taking it into account.
Dec '11
Re: Stephen Glass, Justice And Redemption
Who among us, particularly in our heedless youth, has not committed some act of which we are now ashamed? Who among us has never wished for redemption?
I've hired a lot of people over the course of my career. I always preferred those who had stumbled and then arose to those who presented themselves as without blemish.
What Glass did - concocting stories for a tiny publication - was no crime. He's older, humbler and wiser now. Let the man get on with his life.