Should Stephen Glass get a law license?

[Jim3k]

Fabulist Stephen Glass, the dude who who authored a bunch of fraudulent stories for New Republic back in 1996 and after, later went to law school and is trying to gain admission to the California Bar after having run into earlier problems with the New York Bar. This SF Chron story describes it well.

I am not very sympathetic to his effort his efforts. What do you guys think?

Yes.

No.

Give him more time to prove himself.

[sagegrouse]

The fact that he has chosen a profession where "truth" is the cornerstone is revealing in itself and seem like a continuation of his pathology. I wouldn't vote to admit him to the Bar (I am not a lawyer). He should pick another line of work.

sage

[OldPhiKap]

This lawyer says "no"

[Indoor66]

This lawyer says "no"

I confirm OPK. Never.

[lotusland]

The fact that he has chosen a profession where "truth" is the cornerstone is revealing in itself and seem like a continuation of his pathology. I wouldn't vote to admit him to the Bar (I am not a lawyer). He should pick another line of work.

sage

I have several friends who as are attorneys and they always tell the best lawyer jokes but I have to say that you have an unusually high opinion of the profession.

[JasonEvans]

He committed his "crimes" in his early and mid-20s. It was a long time ago and he has brought forth letters of endorsement from a number of ethical individuals, including 2 judges.

Do his fabrications when he was young make him forever barred from being a lawyer? Doesn't the legal profession believe in rehabilitation and starting over after paying for your crimes?

-Jason "I don't feel strongly about any of this, but I do believe in forgiveness" Evans

[Jim3k]

For additional facts, Jack Shafer wrote on December 8 this more detailed and somewhat lengthy (and unfriendly) account of Glass' efforts to convince the Bar Examiners of his trustworthiness. He addresses the rehabilitation argument, finding the Bar's prosecutor's analysis to be more persuasive. I think both Shafer and Bob Egelko of the SF Chron both cover fairly Glass' supportive arguments.

[OldPhiKap]

He committed his "crimes" in his early and mid-20s. It was a long time ago and he has brought forth letters of endorsement from a number of ethical individuals, including 2 judges.

Do his fabrications when he was young make him forever barred from being a lawyer? Doesn't the legal profession believe in rehabilitation and starting over after paying for your crimes?

-Jason "I don't feel strongly about any of this, but I do believe in forgiveness" Evans

If you are convicted of a felony, you serve your time and are released. But you still give up certain rights in many circumstances -- right to vote, right to bear arms, in some states the right to hold public office -- and some of these are lifetime bans.

Despite the lawyer jokes (and the bad examples we can point to, like Mike Nifong), honesty and trust are a big part of the job. State bars (and the courts that oversee them) are very harsh on those who do not pass the morals portion of the bar application process. I realize the statement above opens me up to numerous lawyer jokes, but it is true. It's an attempt to ensure that the bad apples are the exception and not the rule.

[gus]

If you are convicted of a felony, you serve your time and are released. But you still give up certain rights in many circumstances -- right to vote...

[emphasis added]

I don't think this a good example to cite.

First off, it is not universally true that felons lose the right to vote. Most states do not permanently disenfranchise felons. Further, many southern states had imposed felon disenfranchisement explicitly as a means of denying newly freed African Americans the right to vote.

[OldPhiKap]

[emphasis added]

I don't think this a good example to cite.

First off, it is not universally true that felons lose the right to vote. Most states do not permanently disenfranchise felons. Further, many southern states had imposed felon disenfranchisement explicitly as a means of denying newly freed African Americans the right to vote.

Not suggesting it is good or bad, right or wrong. Just noting it exists (as does the exclusion of felons from jury pools, which I belive is a majority position). But point taken, and I don't mean to veer off into PPB land by noting it.

I think most state bars prohibit felons from sitting for the bar exam, regardless. And I don't think that is done for pernicious purposes.

[-jk]

Let's keep this thread on topic, please.

Thanks,

-jk

[Jim3k]

Trying to be fair to Glass, here's Joe Nocera's supportive op-ed in Today's NYT

[Jarhead]

Sometimes, the lesson learned when caught in bad behavior is simply, "Don't do that again." Sometimes it is, "Don't get caught doing that again." What lesson was learned in Mr. Glass's case? The answer to that is all we meed to vote intelligently in this poll, but the dilemma is for the authorities to resolve. We should let that play out.

[Indoor66]

You only get one opportunity to make a first impression. This guy failed the test.

[brevity]

I have several friends who as are attorneys and they always tell the best lawyer jokes but I have to say that you have an unusually high opinion of the profession.

State bars (and the courts that oversee them) are very harsh on those who do not pass the morals portion of the bar application process.

You're both right. In terms of morals, it's hard to be admitted to the bar, but once you're in, it would take a lot to be disbarred. I imagine this is true in most states.

I'm not the world's biggest believer in redemption -- for afterlife review, start and maybe end on the moment when you were at your worst. Still, there's something to be said about a person who's already been corrupted and is now willing to claw their way back to respectability. (Insert Hayden Christensen/dark side joke here.)

[Cavlaw]

The character and fitness review is a core component of the application to every state bar. It exists because the practice of law requires more than mere technical competence. Good judgment, integrity, and honesty are traits that lawyers need in order to allow our profession to function as it should. When counsel are opposed we may disagree with the arguments, logic or methods of our brethren, but we have faith that every lawyer involved is operating within the same framework of rules, and abiding by the code of conduct that governs us (though we cannot be naive, either). It is a system that is impossible to police perfectly, which is why punishment for violations, when discovered, must be harsh.

There are certainly a lot of unflattering jokes about lawyers. Many of them can be explained by the fact that in every dispute, the winning party's lawyer is viewed by the losing party as the agent of his mistreatment. But it's also true that there are lawyers who abuse the privilege of their license, and who cheapen the profession with their self-interest. That saddens me, but the solution is not to throw up our hands and give up on the integrity of the bar. Rather, we must be ever more diligent about who we allow in, and be thoughtful about the impact that the manner in which we handle members who do not live up to our expectations will have on the reputation of our profession.

When non-lawyers read about the ethical failings of a lawyer in the newspaper, the typical reaction is a roll of the eyes and some statement of non-surprise. The reaction among lawyers is rather different, often ranging from disappointment to disgust or even outrage. Like the members of other self-regulated professions, lawyers are expected to put duty above self-interest.

Those who side with Mr. Glass suggest that his life should not be "destroyed" by his mistakes as a young man, and that he should be given an opportunity for "redemption" for past misdeeds. Mr. Glass has his liberty, and the opportunity to do with his life nearly anything he chooses. Indeed, he has more than that. He is employed as a clerk by a law firm, where he draws an annual salary of more than $150,000 and, under the supervision of a lawyer who has been approved by a character and fitness committee and admitted to the bar, can engage in almost all aspects of work that a lawyer does outside of standing up to argue in court.

Has Mr. Glass reformed sufficiently to be trusted to practice without that supervision? To give advice in the client's best interest, rather than his own? To observe and respect the rules of the courts, and the code of conduct of the profession? To accept failure when it comes, and not seek to turn it into victory through fraud or abuse?

I don't know the answer to that question, but the filings that have been unsealed so far give me pause. I must trust that the California Supreme Court will do its work diligently, and make a decision that the justices feel is in the best interests of the people of California. But I will say that to overcome his previously demonstrated facility with dishonesty, Mr. Glass must do more than plead a difficult childhood and ask for the past to be forgotten.

[Jim3k]

As I write this, the thread had 558 views, but only 14 voters. I find that very strange.

I don't know if the small number of voters had to do with a general lack of interest in the thread itself (who is Stephen Glass and why should I bother?) or whether it was due to general nonconcern regarding who the bar allows to become lawyers and the connected, but poorly understood, rules governing the process.

Sure, I understand that the general public isn't too fond of lawyers, though I must say that attitude caters more to the cartoon stereotype than reality, but why wouldn't more people take an interest in Glass and the perceived threat to the profession that someone like him portends?

Back in the late 60's as I became a bar member, there was a great deal of public discussion about the non-admission of a fellow who had entered into contracts as a minor, but who then avoided contract liability by disavowing those contracts because he was a minor. Most folks thought he should not be admitted as the evidence showed he had signed the contracts with no intention to pay--an issue of moral character. Aside from the merits, my point is that there were several newspaper editorials and a public fight with the state bar and eventually a court decision. So today, I am surprised that the interest now is so low.

Oh, Well... Thanks to those who took the time, particularly Cavlaw who did a nice job of explaining the issues.