In Re Glass

58 Cal.4th 500 (2014)

Facts

Glass was known widely as a dishonest journalist. He by fabricated material for more than 40 articles for The New Republic magazine and other publications. He also carefully fabricated supporting materials to delude The New Republic's fact checkers. The articles included falsehoods that reflected negatively on individuals, political groups, and ethnic minorities. During the same period, starting in September 1997, he was also an evening law student at Georgetown University's law school. Glass made every effort to avoid detection and did not fully cooperate with the publications to identify his fabrications. Glass applied to become a member of the New York bar in 2002, but withdrew when he was informally notified in that his moral character application would be rejected. In the New York bar application materials, he exaggerated his cooperation with the journals that had published his work and failed to supply a complete list of the fabricated articles that had injured others. Glass passed the California Bar examination in 2006. It was not until the California State Bar moral character proceedings that Glass reviewed all of his articles, as well as the editorials The New Republic and other journals published to identify his fabrications, and ultimately identified fabrications that he previously had denied or failed to disclose. In the California proceedings, Glass was not forthright in acknowledging the defects in his New York bar application. The evidence Glass presented did not establish that he engaged in truly exemplary conduct over an extended period. “All but a handful” of the 42 articles he published in The New Republic contained fabrications or were entirely fabricated. The case goes on to detail the extensive fabrications. Glass also engaged in fabrications in freelance articles published by other magazines. Most disturbing is that Glass, even when caught, did not acknowledge the extent of his misdeeds. The editor, Lane (at the new Republic) was very surprised to learn for the first time in the California State Bar proceeding that there were four articles Glass identified in his California Bar application as fabrications that he, Lane, had not even suspected were flawed. Lane was also surprised that four of the articles he had identified to Glass's counsel as suspicious, but which Glass had declined to stipulate contained fabrications, were now admitted in the California State Bar application to involve fabrications. Glass intentionally harmed people. Lane believed that Glass had failed to come forward to actively assist The New Republic in identifying his fabrications, and instead had placed the entire burden of identifying his errors on Lane. Members of Georgetown University's law school faculty testified on his behalf at the hearing. Professor Susan Bloch testified that she believed Glass had learned from his wrongdoing, that the trauma of his exposure would keep him from ever repeating such behavior, and that she had never observed any dishonesty on his part. She did not read his fabricated articles but was generally aware of their content. Professor Stephen Cohen testified that Glass took full responsibility for his misconduct. Cohen believed Glass would be honest and ethical as an attorney; in sum, he believed Glass to be fully rehabilitated. Cohen deemed it “presumptuous” and “offensive” when counsel for the Committee of Bar Examiners asked him whether the Georgetown law school application should be read to have required Glass to notify the school that the journalistic honors he listed in his application may have been based in part on fabricated journalism. Concerning his decision to list only 20 articles containing fabrications in his New York bar application materials, Glass emphasized that he had not been asked for a complete list of articles containing fabrications, but rather an employee of the committee on character and fitness asked for “a list of articles that contained a statement about a real person or real entity, as opposed to a fake person or a fake entity, that reflected something negative upon that real person or real entity.” California Attorney Paul Zuckerman testified that he decided to give Glass a chance as a law clerk. After initially assigning Glass minor projects and exercising close oversight, Zuckerman became convinced that Glass was one of the best employees in the firm, with a fine intellect, a good work ethic, and reliable commitment to honesty. Glass exhibited great compassion, assisting at a personal level with difficult clients and helping to find resources and social services for some of the firm's many homeless clients. Other lawyers who had worked for or with the firm confirmed Zuckerman's view of Glass as an employee who conducted excellent legal research, was assiduous and hyper-scrupulous about honesty and stopped to think about ethical issues. Dr. Richard Friedman, a psychiatrist, reported that he would be astonished if Glass committed misconduct as he had in the past, both because of the growth of character and moral sense the doctor had observed, but also because of a strong instinct to protect himself from the traumatic results of his prior misconduct. He reported that Glass had no sociopathic personality traits. Dr. Rosenthal identified Glass's underlying psychological issues as a need for approval, a need to impress others, and a need for attention, and pointed also to Glass's fear of inadequacy, rejection, and abandonment. Rosenthal testified that when they met in 2005, Glass needed to overcome enormous shame and learn to forgive himself. Through therapy, Glass learned to be realistic about family issues and to set boundaries. Rosenthal believed that Glass had grown up in a family that exerted tremendous pressure on him to succeed yet always made him feel like a failure. In Rosenthal's opinion, Glass was rehabilitated, meaning that he was extremely conscientious and honest, avoided the appearance of impropriety, had reasonable goals and expectations, had gained empathy and tolerance, and would not allow himself to be overwhelmed by stress. The doctor saw no evidence that Glass was a sociopath. The State Bar Court's hearing judge found that Glass had established good moral character. The Committee sought review. The State Bar Court Review Department (Review Department) independently reviewed the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), and a majority of the three-judge panel agreed with the hearing judge that Glass had established good moral character. They believed that Glass had satisfied his “heavy burden of proof” and established his rehabilitation. It added that because the “policy of the state favors admission of applicants who have achieved reformation,” the majority resolved any reasonable doubt concerning Glass's rehabilitation in his favor and “gave him the benefit of any conflicting but equally reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence.”