Title: In re Glass

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

1 
Filed 1/27/14 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
 
             ) 
 
 
             ) 
S196374 
In re STEPHEN RANDALL GLASS on Admission. ) 
 
 
             ) 
State Bar Ct.  
 
 
             ) 
      No. 09-M-11736 
__________________________________________ ) 
 
THE COURT.* 
Stephen Randall Glass made himself infamous as a dishonest journalist by 
fabricating 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 appeared between June 1996 and May 
1998, and 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 once suspicions were aroused, lobbied 
strenuously to keep his job at The New Republic, and, in the aftermath of his 
exposure, did not fully cooperate with the publications to identify his fabrications.  
                                              
* Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., 
and Mosk, J.† 
______________________ 
   †Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, 
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 
Constitution.   
2 
Glass applied to become a member of the New York bar in 2002, but 
withdrew his application after he was informally notified in 2004 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 and filed an 
application for determination of moral character in 2007.  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.  
At the 2010 State Bar Court hearing resulting in the decision under review, 
Glass presented many character witnesses and introduced evidence regarding his 
lengthy course of psychotherapy, along with his own testimony and other 
evidence.  Many of his efforts from the time of his exposure in 1998 until the 2010 
hearing, however, seem to have been directed primarily at advancing his own 
well-being rather than returning something to the community.  His evidence did 
not establish that he engaged in truly exemplary conduct over an extended period.  
We conclude that on this record he has not sustained his heavy burden of 
demonstrating rehabilitation and fitness for the practice of law. 
I.  FACTS 
A.  Committee of Bar Examiners’ evidence 
Stephen Glass was born in September 1972, in a suburb of Chicago, 
Illinois.  After early success as a journalist in college and a developing interest in 
the law, in 1994 Glass was admitted to New York University Law School but 
3 
deferred his intended legal training to accept a position in Washington, D.C. with 
Policy Review magazine.   
In September 1995 Glass accepted a position at The New Republic 
magazine.  In early June 1996 he began fabricating material for publication.  The 
fabrications continued and became bolder and more comprehensive until he was 
exposed and fired in May 1998.   
Glass‟s fabrications began when an article entitled The Hall Monitor was 
published containing a fabricated quotation from an unnamed source disparaging 
United States Representative Pete Hoekstra for behaving in Congress like an 
elementary school “super hall monitor.”  He started by fabricating quotations or 
sources, and ended by publishing wholesale fictions.  He testified that “all but a 
handful” of the 42 articles he published in The New Republic contained 
fabrications or were entirely fabricated.  He also routinely prepared elaborate 
reporter‟s notes and supporting materials to give the false impression to the 
magazine‟s fact checkers that he had done all the background work for each article 
and that his informants had spoken words he falsely attributed to them.   
Glass testified at the State Bar Court hearing that he “wrote nasty, mean-
spirited, horrible” things about people:  “My articles hurt, and they were 
cruel . . . .”  He testified that the fabrications gave him “A-plus” stories that 
afforded him status in staff meetings and also gave particular enjoyment to his 
colleagues.  He said:  “Overwhelmingly, what everyone remembers about my 
pieces are the fake things.” 
A notable 1996 article was entitled Taxis and the Meaning of Work.  It was 
Glass‟s first cover article and one he viewed as “key” to his successful period of 
writing for The New Republic.  Its theme was that Americans, and in particular, 
African-Americans, were no longer willing to work hard or to take on employment 
they consider menial.  The article falsely recounted as factual a supposed 
4 
encounter between Glass and three entirely fabricated characters, one a limousine 
driver, one a taxi cab driver, and one a criminal.  The limousine driver was 
depicted as an African-American man who had driven a cab at one time, but now 
drove a limousine instead because he was “sick of those curry people” and found 
that limousines attracted beautiful women, or, in the purported words of the driver, 
gave him “the woo quotient.”  The author went on to say that he had been 
permitted to ride along for journalistic purposes with a taxi driver of Middle 
Eastern descent.  The article recounted that the driver stopped for a young African-
American passenger — “the type of fare Imran would normally refuse” but felt he 
had to accept because of nearby police observation.  The article describes the 
pounding music audible from the young fare‟s headphones, and claims that as they 
neared his destination, the young African-American man threatened the driver 
with a knife, hurled coarse abuse at him, and took his wallet.  According to the 
article:  “ „These things happen,‟ Imran said coldly on the drive back downtown.  
„I give them whatever they want.  I just want my life.‟ ”   
Spring Breakdown, published in March 1997, was another example of 
Glass‟s fabrications.  The theme of the article was that young, conservative 
Republicans had given up on electoral politics and had turned to drugs and sex.  
Glass invented a fictional group of male college students attending the 
Conservative Political Action Conference.  To convey the young men‟s view that 
conservatives had lost their direction, he attributed to one of them the comment 
that conservatives were “ „like a guy who has to pee lost in the desert, searching 
for a tree.‟ ”  Glass described the young men using marijuana for an hour, then 
embarking on a search for a young woman to humiliate.  The plan was “to choose 
the ugliest and loneliest they can find,” a person the young men described as “a 
real heifer, the fatter the better, bad acne,” for a few of them to lure to their hotel 
room and persuade to undress.  At that point, the remaining men would emerge 
5 
from under the bed, shout “ „we‟re beaching.  Whale spotted!‟ ” and photograph 
the woman.  After turning to a discussion of asserted losses in popularity 
experienced by the conservative movement, the article went on to recount the 
execution of the plot described above.  It asserted that a woman in fact emerged 
from the young men‟s room unclothed and in tears, while the perpetrators 
congratulated each other.  The article went on:  “This repellent scene was only a 
little beyond the norm of the conference.  A wash of despair and alcohol and 
brutishness hung over the whole thing.”  More examples of drug use ensued, along 
with examples of shameless sexual behavior.  All of this was fabricated. 
In another article, entitled Deliverance, published in November 1996, Glass 
recounted receiving unsatisfactory service from a named computer company, and 
claimed that his complaints to a telephone customer service representative were 
met with an anti-Semitic slur.  In truth, no such slur ever was uttered.  Glass also 
wrote a letter to the president of the company, repeating the accusation, and sent a 
copy to the Anti-Defamation League. 
Glass also engaged in fabrications in freelance articles published by other 
magazines.  An example was Prophets and Losses, an article published in 
Harper‟s Magazine in February 1998, at which time Glass was also a law student.  
In that article, Glass represented that he had worked for a telephone psychic 
service for a time, and recounted fabricated conversations with management, 
represented as mercenary and either stupid or cynical, and also fabricated 
conversations with callers, who were depicted as ignorant and desperate.  In one 
case a caller, a fabricated character to whom Glass had attributed an African-
American dialect, could not be persuaded to use his money to feed and clothe his 
seven children by five different mothers instead of buying VCRs and calling 
telephone psychics for advice on lottery numbers.  The article was almost entirely 
a fabrication.  Glass explained at the hearing that his intent was to expose “how 
6 
the telephone psychic industry preys on minorities . . . .  It uses minority 
celebrities to advertise and shows that are watched predominantly by minorities to 
lure them into paying insane amounts of money.  [¶]  I was angry about that, and I 
wanted to attack that, and I used terrible, horrible stereotypes to create, essentially, 
straw men to knock down.”  
In another example, Glass wrote an article entitled The Vernon Question for 
George magazine.  The lengthy article, published in April 1998, concerned Vernon 
Jordan, an advisor to then-President Clinton during the then-emerging Monica 
Lewinsky scandal.  In two paragraphs, Glass used nonexistent sources to describe 
Jordan‟s supposed reputation as a “boor” and attributed various fictitious 
statements to “political operatives,” “socialites,” “political hostesses” and 
officials.  These persons assertedly stated that Jordan was well known for sexually 
explicit comments, unwanted sexual advances, and crude stares, and added that he 
was known in their circles as “Vern the Worm” or “Pussyman,” and that young 
women needed protection against him.  Another paragraph attributed to a fictional 
“watchdog” group contained certain claims about Jordan‟s asserted conflicts of 
interest and questionable corporate ethics along with statements attributed to 
fictional “senior officials” at companies on whose boards Jordan sat, saying that 
Jordan is “totally unaware of the issues” but “we get what we want, access, and he 
gets what he wants, cash.”  These were all fabrications. 
Charles Lane, who was the editor of The New Republic at the time of 
Glass‟s exposure, testified for the Committee of Bar Examiners (hereafter 
sometimes Committee) that he had received an early complaint about Glass 
concerning an article entitled Boys on the Bus, depicting the actor Alec Baldwin 
and his brother as silly celebrities whose efforts during a bus tour to campaign on 
the issue of campaign finance reform were based on ignorance.  A representative 
of Baldwin‟s disputed the assertion in the article that the actor had been giving out 
7 
autographs during the bus tour, but Glass repudiated the accusation in print in The 
New Republic.  It wasn‟t until Glass prepared his application to the California 
State Bar that he acknowledged that this article contained fabricated evidence to 
the effect that interest in the bus tour came from movie fans seeking autographs 
and referred to a fabricated person who opined that Baldwin lacked real 
understanding of campaign finance reform.  
Although at the time, the Boys on the Bus incident seemingly was resolved 
in Glass‟s favor, Lane‟s suspicions were aroused in May 1998 when a journalist 
employed by Forbes Digital Tool telephoned to warn him that factual assertions in 
Glass‟s recent article for George magazine, Hack Heaven, did not seem to be true.  
The article had described a teenager hacking a California software company and 
extorting money to stop the intrusion.  The article described a convention in 
Bethesda, Maryland where some of the events occurred, and when Lane 
challenged Glass, the latter journeyed with Lane to Bethesda, purporting to 
identify the building where the convention had been held.  A person working in 
the building denied such a convention had occurred, and Lane became persuaded 
that Glass was lying.  Lane pressed Glass about the factual basis for the article, 
and although Glass was evasive, he insisted the article was accurate.  Glass spent 
the night at home fabricating what he would assert were his reporter‟s notes from 
interviews, fake business cards, a voicemail box, a Web site, and newsletters.  He 
also induced his brother to impersonate a source.   
Upon their return to the office from Bethesda, Glass lobbied the executive 
editor and others to intervene on his behalf with Lane, urging that he was being 
treated unfairly.  Lane, now suspecting that other fabrications may have occurred, 
wanted to fire him, but in response to the lobbying, suspended him.  The next day, 
a Saturday, Lane was surprised to discover Glass at the office.  Thinking Glass had 
been told not to return, Lane suspected he had altered his computer files.  He 
8 
confronted Glass with evidence that Glass had used his brother as a false source in 
the Hack Heaven piece.  Ultimately, during this exchange Glass admitted the 
article was fabricated, and Lane fired him.  Lane found on Glass‟s desk a letter 
Glass had written to his landlord, falsely stating he had been transferred by The 
New Republic to New York, and needed his security deposit refunded.  Lane also 
found the letter Glass had written to the chief executive of Gateway computers, 
again stating the falsehood that a customer service employee had used an anti-
Semitic slur against Glass.   
Lane reviewed all of Glass‟s articles over the course of the following three 
or four weeks.  He received a letter from Glass apologizing and saying he had 
instructed his lawyers to cooperate with The New Republic.  Lane compiled a 
summary of the material in Glass‟s articles that he found suspicious and submitted 
the summary to Glass‟s counsel, who it was agreed would stipulate to those 
findings of Lane‟s that Glass believed to be correct.  At the time, Lane concluded 
that 27 of the 42 articles Glass had written for the magazine contained 
fabrications, and Lane wrote two editorial articles informing the magazine‟s 
readership to this effect.   
Lane 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 — including the disturbing Taxis and the Meaning of Work, along 
with Deliverance, with its false claim of anti-Semitism, and Boys on the Bus, 
which had involved the magazine in a dispute over authenticity even before 
Glass‟s exposure. 
9 
Lane testified that he thought Glass had perpetrated an elaborate hoax on 
readers and was engaged in a con game, not journalism.  He testified that Glass‟s 
case had been highlighted at the Newseum, a Washington D.C. museum of 
journalism, as one of the worst examples of misconduct in journalistic history.  
Lane noted that The New Republic was put to the expense of hiring a private 
investigator to analyze Glass‟s articles and incurred legal fees in the tens of 
thousands of dollars.  He testified that Glass had not offered him reimbursement 
for the magazine‟s expenses, nor did he offer to refund any portion of the salary he 
had been paid.  Lane added that the fabrications hurt the magazine‟s reputation, 
relationships between employees, and of course hurt those maligned in the articles.  
Lane was not mollified by a letter of apology he received from Glass in August 
2003, around the time Glass‟s novel, The Fabulist, was published.  Lane 
considered the letter fawning.  Lane considered Glass “flagrantly incapable of 
producing honest journalism,” and concluded that his record of systematic 
deception and lack of thorough confession made him unemployable as a journalist.   
Richard Bradley, who was Washington affairs editor for George magazine 
and Glass‟s editor for his freelance articles for that magazine, testified on behalf of 
the Committee.  Bradley stated that when he learned of the scandal involving 
Glass at The New Republic, he investigated the background for the three freelance 
articles Glass had published, as well as a fourth article that Glass had submitted 
and that was being edited.  On investigation, the article on Vernon Jordan “blew 
apart like a dandelion in a strong wind.”  Assertions in the other articles were 
difficult to substantiate.  When, within a week of learning there were problems 
with Glass‟s work, Bradley contacted Glass for help in identifying problems in the 
articles, Glass responded that he was psychologically incapable of doing so and 
that he was suicidal, and hung up.  The magazine published an editorial indicating 
that significant portions of the Vernon Jordan article appeared to be false, and that 
10 
fabrications were woven into reliable reporting so that it was difficult to 
distinguish them.  Glass never contacted Bradley to tell him what was true or false 
in his articles in George magazine, nor was Bradley contacted by Glass‟s lawyer.  
(Glass did send a letter of apology to the magazine‟s editor-in-chief.)  Bradley 
believed that Glass had discredited journalism, contributing to the misconception 
that journalists are “craven and dishonest.”  Bradley commented that Glass‟s 
articles “caricatured and mocked their subjects . . . and I felt that the perceptions 
promoted by [Glass‟s] fabrications, in these examples [of] African-American 
people and conservatives, could not be corrected as easily as a factual mistake 
could be.”  Because he would not be credible, Bradley would not hire Glass as a 
journalist.   
Joseph Landau, who later became a law professor at Fordham University 
Law School, was a fact checker at the New Republic while Glass worked there.  
He testified that Glass had a superior reputation for accuracy among fact checkers 
because his notes were so thorough and he was apparently so forthcoming, but he 
tended to push the fact-checking process to the last minute so that it was rushed 
and could not be done face-to-face.  At times Glass could not verify certain facts 
but would promise Landau to telephone the source.  Glass would soon return with 
confirmation and updated material, a process that reaffirmed the witness‟s sense 
that the fact checking was working.  Landau had trusted him.  Landau received a 
letter of apology from Glass in the summer of 2004, some six years after Glass had 
been exposed, and found it to be general and vague. 
Louis Miller, a lawyer and chairperson of the board of DARE (Drug Abuse 
Resistance Education), testified that Glass published falsehoods in articles in The 
New Republic in March 1997 and Rolling Stone in March 1998 that impaired the 
organization‟s reputation, because the articles claimed DARE was ineffective.  
According to Miller, the articles contained fabricated “evidence” that the 
11 
organization had engaged in a widespread campaign of heavy-handed and even 
violent criminal tactics to counter academic and journalistic criticism of the 
program.  DARE sued Glass for libel and settled after Glass agreed the challenged 
information was fabricated, issued a retraction, and paid the organization‟s legal 
expenses of between $25,000 and $50,000.  DARE did not receive a letter of 
apology from Glass before it filed suit.  DARE sued Rolling Stone for defamation 
but lost on the ground that DARE had failed to establish actual malice. 
Glass graduated from law school in 2000, when he also took and passed the 
New York bar examination.  He applied to become a member of the New York bar 
in 2002.  After an evidentiary hearing before a subcommittee of a Committee on 
Character and Fitness, and pursuant to apparent custom, in September 2004, a 
representative of that committee informed Glass informally that his application 
would be rejected, so he withdrew it.  The record does not disclose the reason for 
the tentative decision. 
In his application to the New York bar, Glass described his misconduct and 
firing.  His application and supporting materials included only 20 articles 
containing fabrications.  Glass wrote that he had apologized to the editor of The 
New Republic, saying “I also worked with all three magazines [referring to The 
New Republic, Harper‟s, and George magazines] and other publications where I 
had written freelance articles to identify which facts were true and which were 
false in all of my stories, so they could publish clarifications for their readers.”  
At the hearing, Lane challenged the quoted statement as untrue.  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.  Lane testified:  “Well, he didn‟t work with us.  
The effort we went through, over the course of nearly a month, to investigate all 
those stories would have been unnecessary if he had worked with us, and simply 
12 
come forward and laid bare everything that was untrue in his stories.  Instead, he 
sought legal counsel and, in effect, clammed up.  [¶]  . . .  [W]hen I read the 
statement that he‟s laid out in this proceeding, I discovered that, even to this day, 
he has not — or had not — come clean about everything.  So I‟m a little amazed 
to see that he was representing to somebody that he worked with The New 
Republic to separate fact from fiction in his articles.  That was definitely not my 
experience.” 
B.  Applicant’s evidence 
According to Glass, during his childhood and young adulthood his parents 
exerted extremely intense and cruel pressure upon him to succeed academically 
and socially.  Glass felt that The New Republic offered an extremely competitive 
atmosphere and that his journalistic efforts there failed to make a mark sufficient 
to ensure his retention after his year term had elapsed.  It was after a visit to the 
family home, when his parents berated him for his apparent failure even in what 
they considered the worthless career of journalism, that he began fabricating 
material for publication.  He also fabricated reporters‟ notes and supporting 
materials for his articles.  His aim was to impress his parents and colleagues. 
Once he was fired from The New Republic, Glass was distraught, suicidal, 
and unable to focus, almost immediately entering therapy.  He nonetheless hired 
counsel whom he directed to “work with The New Republic.”  Glass testified that 
he believed that The New Republic wanted to conduct its own investigation 
because it did not trust him and testified that “I came to understand that they were 
going to provide me with a list of [fabricated] articles, and that I was to affirm 
whether or not the article was fabricated that they showed me or that they listed.”  
He had fabricated more than The New Republic had discovered in its 
investigation, although he testified that due to his distress he did not realize this 
when he reviewed the list or later when he glanced at The New Republic‟s 
13 
editorials listing his fabrications.  Four of his articles containing fabrications were 
not on the list and he had erroneously denied there were fabrications in four 
articles that were on the list, including Boys on the Bus, Deliverance, and Taxis 
and the Meaning of Work.  He did not read the editorials — incomplete, as it 
turned out — that Lane published listing his fabricated articles.  In fact, he closely 
read those articles for the first time when the California State Bar asked him to list 
all of his fabricated articles.  Glass testified that he had “no information” 
indicating that his lawyers had failed to convey information to The New Republic.  
Glass did well in law school.  Within a few days of his firing, he 
rescheduled an exam and within a week, managed to earn a B-plus grade on an 
exam.  He explained, however, that this was a poor grade for him.   
Members of Georgetown University‟s law school faculty testified on his 
behalf at the hearing.  Professor Susan Bloch telephoned him when the scandal 
first broke and asked if he needed someone to talk to.  She appointed him as her 
research assistant, praising him as one of the brightest and best workers she ever 
had encountered.  She found him to be honest and developed complete trust in 
him.  She recommended him for a judicial internship during law school and a 
clerkship after graduation.  Bloch maintained friendly contact with Glass over the 
years, including after he moved to California, and testified on his behalf when 
Glass applied for admission to the New York bar.  She 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, also of the Georgetown law school, testified that 
Glass took full responsibility for his misconduct.  They became friends and Glass 
was a welcome visitor with Cohen‟s family.  Cohen believed Glass would be 
14 
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. 
In 2001, at the end of his clerkship, Glass moved to New York to be with 
his girlfriend, and underwent psychoanalysis on a four-day-a-week basis.  In June 
2001 Glass entered into a contract to write a novel based on his experiences at The 
New Republic, testifying that his psychiatrists advised him that it would be 
therapeutic to write the book, which he hoped would serve as a warning to young 
journalists.  He was paid an advance of $175,000 and sold subsidiary rights for 
$15,000.  He wrote the novel, The Fabulist, and appeared on the television 
program 60 Minutes in May 2003 (just prior to the date of publication) to discuss 
his experiences.  He claimed that it was not his intent to use the appearance to sell 
his book, but rather to offer a public apology. 
During his residence in New York, and mostly between 2001 and 2004, 
Glass also undertook to handwrite approximately 100 letters of apology to 
journalists affected by his fabrications, as well as to the persons who were injured 
by his articles.  He also spoke at a journalism forum at George Washington 
University in 2003, where he was loudly berated by other journalists.  He spoke at 
a journalism class at Columbia and to a civics organization for high school 
students.  In addition, he worked at a senior center on a regular basis for 
approximately one year in New York. 
Concerning the questions that had arisen about the accuracy of his New 
York bar application, specifically his assertion that he had “worked with” the 
affected magazines “to identify which facts were true and which were false in all 
15 
[his] stories, so they could publish clarifications,” Glass testified that perhaps he 
should have written that he “ „offered to work with all three magazines,‟ ” or in 
fact, that he “ „offered to work . . . through counsel,‟ ” but added that he did not 
intend to make any misrepresentation or exaggeration.  He testified that he 
assumed his lawyer had contacted George magazine, as Glass had instructed him 
to do, and that he did not prepare a list of fabrications for George magazine.  He 
explained that he attached to his New York bar application the editorials The New 
Republic had published incompletely listing his fabrications, but he did not read 
them, or at least did not read them carefully at that time.  He also attached the 
notice that George magazine had published about his work — an article that did 
not refer to two of his three articles for George that contained fabrications.  He 
reviewed these carefully for the first time in preparation for the California State 
Bar hearing. 
When asked at the hearing in the present matter whether it would be 
accurate to say that he offered to work with The New Republic to identify which 
facts were true and which were false in all of his stories, he answered “I believe 
that was my intention at the time, yes, and I believe I tried to do that.”  He 
explained that what he meant by this was that he asked his counsel to offer to go 
through the articles to identify fabrications, and then a “joint defense agreement 
was entered into, proposed by The New Republic, and we entered into a joint 
defense agreement that constructed this system.”   
Similarly, Glass explained, he did not actually undertake any work with 
Harper‟s Magazine to identify what was true and what was false in his articles, but 
“offered to work with them, or asked counsel to offer.”  He did not “have a 
memory of asking” his attorney whether counsel had contacted Harper‟s.  When 
asked whether, when he prepared his New York bar application, he noticed or was 
troubled by the absence of any article from Harper‟s about his fabrications, he 
16 
testified that he still assumed counsel had offered to exchange information or to 
enter into an agreement with Harper‟s.  When pressed on his failure to confirm 
counsel‟s contact with Harper‟s, he testified:  “I confirmed — well in my head I 
asked [counsel] to do something and he didn‟t tell me otherwise, I believed it to 
have occurred.”   
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 in a 
telephone conversation, 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.”  He wrote a letter to that committee 
memorializing this telephone conversation, saying he had been asked to list 
instances in which his fabrications “had a harmful impact on real persons.  In 
response, I‟ve gone back through all of my articles to identify those in which 
potentially harmful false statements were made about actual persons and actual 
organization,” and also warning that there might be inadvertent omissions.  He did 
not list Deliverance, Boys on the Bus, or an article concerning Ted Turner entitled 
Gift of the Magnet, although these contained fabrications.  He explained at the 
California hearing that the customer service agent to whom he attributed the anti-
Semitic slur in Deliverance was a “made-up character,” and so, he insisted, the 
article did not harm a real person.  When pressed, he admitted that the article 
could have caused harm to the customer service agent the company determined 
had assisted him, and to the company.   
Similarly, he did not include the Boys on the Bus article in his New York 
bar materials because the person to whom he attributed the statement that Alec 
Baldwin did not know much about campaign finance reform was fake, and he had 
17 
created some “fake fans.”  When asked whether the article harmed Alec Baldwin, 
a real person, he responded that “Alec Baldwin, truth be told, did not know much 
about campaign finance reform.”  When pressed, he conceded that there was a 
potential for injury to Baldwin.   
Glass testified that he moved to California in the fall of 2004.  He was hired 
by the Carpenter, Zuckerman and Rowley law firm as a law clerk.  The firm has 
many homeless clients, and in addition to the legal work he does on their cases, he 
has helped them with their personal problems, even with regard to matters of 
personal hygiene.   
Originally Glass undertook volunteer work in Los Angeles, but because his 
law firm encouraged him to stop taking time off during the work day, he arranged 
to work extra hours for deserving clients on matters for which his firm had no 
expectation of collecting fees.  
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. 
Also offered in support of Glass‟s application were affidavits that had been 
submitted in support of his New York bar application from the judges for whom 
Glass had worked during and immediately after completing law school.  Both 
found him highly competent and honest at that time.  Additional declarations from 
18 
attorneys and friends that had been submitted with the New York bar application 
were offered in support. 
Dr. Richard Friedman, a psychiatrist, testified that he had treated Glass 
since 2005, and believed he had developed good judgment, scrupulous honesty, 
and the ability to handle difficult situations well.  Dr. Friedman 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. Richard Rosenthal, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who is known for 
treating gamblers and those with impulse control disorders, was approached by 
Glass‟s attorney in 2005.  Rosenthal had an evaluative as well as therapeutic 
relationship with Glass that began in 2005 and continued with meetings once or 
twice a month until the time of the hearing.   
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. 
19 
Glass himself described his therapy, which had commenced very shortly 
after his exposure and continued to the time of the 2010 hearing, that is, for 12 
years.  Through therapy he had learned to separate his feelings about his family 
from the work environment and to “set boundaries within my family.”  He testified 
that he believed the most important thing he could do to make amends was to 
change himself.   
Martin Peretz, who owned and managed The New Republic at the time of 
the fabrications, testified on Glass‟s behalf and had developed a charitable view of 
his misconduct by the time of the California State Bar hearing.  He blamed himself 
and, even more, the magazine‟s editors for encouraging Glass to write zany, 
shocking articles and for failing to recognize the improbability of some of Glass‟s 
stories.  He found the harm of the scandal to the magazine to be minimal.  He had 
renewed social contact with Glass in the past few years and believed that Glass 
had been harshly treated.  He would not rule out hiring Glass again as a journalist.  
He explained that in his experience as a professor “[t]he most brilliant students 
plagiarize,” complaining to the Committee‟s counsel, “I actually find your 
pursuing him an act of stalking.”   
Additional character witnesses included Melanie Thernstrom, a journalist, 
memoirist, and friend who testified that she had known Glass for more than a 
decade because she was a close friend of his girlfriend, Julie Hilden.  Her initial 
skepticism about him dissolved soon after she met him and she believed he had 
become kind, generous, loyal, responsible, empathetic and above all, honest.  
Thernstrom witnessed Glass during the period he wrote letters of apology and said 
that each letter required considerable work and caused him anguish.  She found 
him to be very sorry for the deceptions, and believed that he had taken 
responsibility for his past acts and would never deceive again.  She had observed 
that Glass was intelligent, hardworking, and empathetic with clients who were 
20 
injured.  She thought the Committee was “picking on” irrelevant issues — that is, 
the exact number of Glass‟s deceptive articles and whether or when he had 
disclosed them all.  She believed the Committee‟s position was “sophistic.”  In her 
view, it was enough that he had admitted his misconduct and apologized for it, and 
she believed that there was no current, ongoing damage from his fabricated 
articles because Glass‟s work had been entirely discredited.  
Lawrence Berger, a friend, testified on Glass‟s behalf, saying that Glass 
immediately told him about the scandal when they met.  He testified that Glass is 
especially committed to being a good person now, being remarkably ethical and a 
devoted friend.  According to Berger, Glass‟s efforts during the period he wrote 
the letters of apology were never perfunctory. 
Julie Hilden, a freelance lawyer and aspiring scriptwriter and Glass‟s 
longtime live-in girlfriend, also testified on his behalf.  He took good care of her 
during a prolonged, serious illness, even though she lived in New York and he was 
completing law school and doing his clerkship in Washington, D.C. at the time.  
She testified that he immediately demonstrated that he was very serious about 
being completely honest in every detail, and honesty is still an overriding concern.  
She observed the great effort he put into writing letters of apology during a 
prolonged period between 2002 and 2004.  She explained that he takes a personal 
interest in clients, works very hard for them, and accepts their telephone calls at all 
hours, including nights and weekends.   
C.  California State Bar proceedings 
Glass took and passed the California Bar Examination in 2006 and in July 
2007 filed an application for determination of moral character as part of his bar 
application.  The Committee of Bar Examiners denied the application, but on 
Glass‟s request a moral character hearing was conducted in the State Bar Court in 
April and May of 2010. 
21 
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 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.   
The Review Department majority acknowledged that Glass‟s misconduct 
had been “appalling” and “egregious,” but believed that Glass had satisfied his 
“heavy burden of proof” and established his rehabilitation.  The majority stated 
that Glass‟s burden of proof as a first-time applicant was “substantially less 
rigorous” than it would have been for an attorney seeking reinstatement after 
disbarment.  Moreover, the majority declared, its “task here is not to dwell on his 
past misdeeds, but to determine his present moral fitness.”  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.”  The majority 
concluded that “[c]umulatively, Glass‟s legal employment history, community 
service, character witnesses, progress in therapy, remorse and acceptance of 
responsibility” provided a more accurate picture of his moral character than his 
misconduct of many years ago.   
The majority acknowledged that Glass had not fully identified his 
fabrications until the California bar proceedings, but observed that Glass had not 
asked the bar to excuse that failure.  The majority also expressed some concern 
regarding Glass‟s New York bar application, observing that he had 
“mischaracterized the degree to which he cooperated with the magazines to 
identify the fabricated articles.”  On the other hand, in the majority‟s view, Glass‟s 
careful review of his prior articles in connection with the California State Bar 
22 
proceedings indicated that he had fully acknowledged his wrongdoing, an 
“ „essential step towards rehabilitation.‟ ”  In addition, the majority concluded that 
Glass had left it to his attorneys to work with the magazines because of his 
emotional turmoil, and “[t]he State Bar did not prove whether Glass‟s attorney 
failed to „work with‟ some of the publishers and neither did Glass establish that his 
attorney had completed the task as requested.”  
The majority commented upon Glass‟s excellent reputation with law 
professors and judicial employers, and observed that Glass‟s rehabilitation seemed 
to have occurred over a number of years.  The majority recounted the course of 
Glass‟s therapy and his therapists‟ testimony on his behalf in support of the view 
that he was rehabilitated.  The majority further referred to Glass‟s community 
service in New York and commented that his work commitments rendered him 
unable to continue non-work-related community service in Los Angeles, where he 
had resided since 2004.  
The majority placed great emphasis on Glass‟s character witnesses, saying:  
“We afford great weight to Glass‟s character witnesses, who were community 
leaders, employers, judges, and attorneys, and all of whom spoke with the utmost 
confidence in Glass‟s good moral character and rehabilitation.” 
The majority declined to believe restitution was required of Glass.  “We 
consider his present character in light of his previous moral shortcomings 
[citation], and we are at a loss to understand how monetary restitution would 
mitigate the reputational harm that Glass had caused.”  The majority found more 
significant evidence that he has made amends both to the journalistic community 
in his public admissions concerning his fabrications and to his victims in the 
letters he sent them. 
The majority concluded that “even those who have committed serious, 
indeed egregious, misconduct, are capable of overcoming their past misdeeds” and 
23 
that persons who had reformed should be rewarded with an opportunity to serve as 
lawyers. 
The Review Department panel‟s dissenting opinion concluded that Glass 
had not proven full rehabilitation, pointing to his “ „staggering‟ ” two-year period 
of “multi-layered, complex and harmful course of public dishonesty.”  The 
dissenting judge found especially troubling Glass‟s omissions and misstatements 
in his application to the New York bar.  “[T]o gain admission to practice law in 
New York, Glass understated the number of articles he had fabricated and 
exaggerated his efforts to help the magazines identify those articles.  At a time 
when he should have been scrupulously honest, he presented an inaccurate 
application because it benefitted him — the same behavior as his earlier 
misconduct.”  The dissenting opinion concluded:  “Given the magnitude of his 
misconduct and his subsequent misrepresentations on his New York bar 
application, Glass has not shown proof of reform by a lengthy period of exemplary 
conduct which „we could with confidence lay before the world‟ to justify his 
admission.”   
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Applicable Law 
To be qualified to practice law in this state, a person must be of good moral 
character.  (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6060, subd. (b), 6062, subd. (a)(2).)  Good 
moral character includes “qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, 
observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and obedience to the law, and 
respect for the rights of others and the judicial process.”  (Rules of State Bar, tit. 4, 
Admissions and Educational Stds., rule 4.40(B); see also Bus. & Prof. Code, 
§ 6068.)  “Persons of good character . . . do not commit acts or crimes involving 
moral turpitude — a concept that embraces a wide range of deceitful and depraved 
behavior.”  (In re Gossage (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080, 1095 (Gossage).)  A lawyer‟s 
24 
good moral character is essential for the protection of clients and for the proper 
functioning of the judicial system itself.  (See In re Johnson (1992) 1 Cal.4th 689, 
705-706 (conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)   
When the applicant has presented evidence that is sufficient to establish a 
prima facie case of his or her good moral character, the burden shifts to the State 
Bar to rebut that case with evidence of poor moral character.  Once the State Bar 
has presented evidence of moral turpitude, the burden “falls squarely upon the 
applicant to demonstrate his [or her] rehabilitation.”  (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th 
at p. 1096.)   
Of particular significance for the present case is the principle that “the more 
serious the misconduct and the bad character evidence, the stronger the applicant‟s 
showing of rehabilitation must be.”  (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1096.)  
“Cases authorizing admission on the basis of rehabilitation commonly involve a 
substantial period of exemplary conduct following the applicant‟s misdeeds.”  
(Ibid., italics added.)  Moreover, “truly exemplary” conduct ordinarily includes 
service to the community.  (In re Menna (1995) 11 Cal.4th 975, 990 (Menna).) 
We independently weigh the evidence that was before the State Bar Court 
(Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1096), recognizing that the applicant bears the 
burden of establishing good moral character.  (Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at 
p. 983.)  We ask whether the applicant is fit to practice law, paying particular 
attention to acts of moral turpitude (Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1061, 
1068 (Kwasnik)) and prior misconduct that bears particularly upon fitness to 
practice law.  (Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1966) 65 Cal.2d 447, 452 
(Hallinan).)   
In reviewing moral fitness findings made by the State Bar, we accord 
significant weight to the State Bar Court hearing judge‟s findings of fact to the 
extent they are based on witness demeanor and credibility.  (Gossage, supra, 23 
25 
Cal.4th at p. 1096.)  Although “the moral character determinations of the 
Committee and the State Bar Court play an integral role in the admissions 
decision, and both bear substantial weight within their respective spheres,” we are 
not bound by the determinations of the Committee or the State Bar Court.  (Ibid.)  
Rather, we “independently examine and weigh the evidence” to decide whether 
the applicant is qualified for admission.  (Ibid.; see also In re Rose (2000) 22 
Cal.4th 430, 455 [“we afford de novo review of questions of fact and law”]; 
Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 985.) 
Contrary to the Review Department majority‟s view that Glass‟s burden 
was significantly lighter than it would be for an attorney seeking readmission 
because he was a first-time applicant, in many respects the difference between 
admission and disciplinary proceedings is “more apparent than real.”  (Hallinan, 
supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 452.)  “Because both admission and disciplinary 
proceedings concern fitness to practice law as evidenced by acts of moral 
turpitude, this court routinely consults its disciplinary cases in deciding whether 
applicants for admission possess, at the outset, the requisite moral character.”  
(Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1095.)  At both admission and disciplinary 
proceedings, “[t]he common issue is whether the applicant for admission or the 
attorney sought to be disciplined „is a fit and proper person to be permitted to 
practice law, and that usually turns upon whether he has committed or is likely to 
continue to commit acts of moral turpitude‟ ” (Kwasnik, supra, 50 Cal.3d at 
p. 1068), particularly misconduct that bears upon the applicant‟s fitness to practice 
law.  (Hallinan, supra, at p. 471.)   
“However, unlike in disciplinary proceedings, where the State Bar must 
show that an already admitted attorney is unfit to practice law and deserves 
professional sanction, the burden rests upon the candidate for admission to prove 
his own moral fitness.”  (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) 
26 
B.  Analysis 
The Review Department majority believed it was reasonable to draw all 
inferences in favor of Glass, failing to be constrained by our discussion in 
Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1080, as we shall explain.  Although an applicant 
ordinarily receives the benefit of the doubt as to “conflicting equally reasonable 
inferences” concerning moral fitness (id. at p. 1098), the State Bar Court majority 
failed to recognize that this rule does not materially assist applicants who have 
engaged in serious misconduct.  This is because “[w]here serious or criminal 
misconduct is involved, positive inferences about the applicant‟s moral character 
are more difficult to draw, and negative character inferences are stronger and more 
reasonable.”  (Id. at p. 1098, italics added.)  When there have been very serious 
acts of moral turpitude, we must be convinced that the applicant “is no longer the 
same person who behaved so poorly in the past,” and will find moral fitness “only 
if he [or she] has since behaved in exemplary fashion over a meaningful period of 
time.”  (Ibid.)   
Applying the Gossage standard in this case of egregious malfeasance, we 
begin our own independent review of the record with a focus on Glass‟s many acts 
of dishonesty and professional misconduct, and then ask whether he has 
established a compelling showing of rehabilitation and truly exemplary conduct 
over an extended period that would suffice to demonstrate his fitness for the 
practice of law. 
Glass‟s conduct as a journalist exhibited moral turpitude sustained over an 
extended period.  As the Review Department dissent emphasized, he engaged in 
“fraud of staggering‟ proportions” and he “use[d] . . . his exceptional writing skills 
to publicly and falsely malign people and organizations for actions they did not do 
and faults they did not have.”  As the dissent further commented, for two years he 
“engaged in a multi-layered, complex, and harmful course of public dishonesty.”  
27 
Glass‟s journalistic dishonesty was not a single lapse of judgment, which we have 
sometimes excused, but involved significant deceit sustained unremittingly for a 
period of years.  (See Hall v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1979) 25 Cal.3d 730, 
742 [applications may be rejected in cases of “numerous fraudulent acts” and 
“false statements”].)  Glass‟s deceit also was motivated by professional ambition, 
betrayed a vicious, mean spirit and a complete lack of compassion for others, 
along with arrogance and prejudice against various ethnic groups.  In all these 
respects, his misconduct bore directly on his character in matters that are critical to 
the practice of law. 
Glass not only spent two years producing damaging articles containing or 
entirely made up of fabrications, thereby deluding the public, maligning 
individuals, and disparaging ethnic minorities, he also routinely expended 
considerable efforts to fabricate background materials to dupe the fact checkers 
assigned to vet his work.  When exposure threatened, he redoubled his efforts to 
hide his misconduct, going so far as to create a phony Web site and business cards 
and to recruit his brother to pose as a source.  In addition, to retain his position, he 
engaged in a spirited campaign among the leadership at The New Republic to 
characterize Lane‟s obviously well-founded concerns as unfair and to retain his 
position. 
Glass‟s conduct during this two-year period violated ethical strictures 
governing his profession.  Believing that “public enlightenment is the forerunner 
of justice and the foundation of democracy,” the Code of Ethics of the Society of 
Professional Journalists provides that “[t]he duty of the journalist is to further 
those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of 
events and issues[,] . . . striv[ing] to serve the public with thoroughness and 
honesty. . . .  [¶] . . . [¶]  . . . Deliberate distortion is never permissible.”  (Code of 
Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (1996 rev.) reprinted in Brown et 
28 
al., Journalism Ethics, a Casebook of Professional Conduct (4th ed., 2011) p. 8.)  
Glass‟s behavior fell so far short of this standard that Lane recounted seeing Glass 
featured in an exhibit in the Newseum, a Washington, D.C. museum dedicated to 
journalism, as embodying one of the worst episodes of deceit in journalistic 
history.  
Glass‟s misconduct was also reprehensible because it took place while he 
was pursuing a law degree and license to practice law, when the importance of 
honesty should have gained new meaning and significance for him. 
Moreover, Glass‟s lack of integrity and forthrightness continued beyond the 
time he was engaged in journalism.  Once he was exposed, Glass‟s response was 
to protect himself, not to freely and fully admit and catalogue all of his 
fabrications.  He never fully cooperated with his employers to clarify the record, 
failed to carefully review the editorials they published to describe the fabrications 
to their readership, made misrepresentations to The New Republic regarding some 
of his work during the period he purported to be cooperating with that magazine, 
and indeed some of his fabrications did not come to light until the California State 
Bar proceedings.  He refused to speak to his editor at George magazine when the 
latter called to ask for help in identifying fabrications in the articles Glass wrote 
for that magazine.   
The record also discloses instances of dishonesty and disingenuousness 
occurring after Glass‟s exposure, up to and including the State Bar evidentiary 
hearing in 2010.  In the New York bar proceedings that ended in 2004, as even the 
State Bar Court majority acknowledged, he made misrepresentations concerning 
his cooperation with The New Republic and other publications and efforts to aid 
them identify all of his fabrications.  He also submitted an incomplete list of 
articles that injured others.  We have previously said about omissions on bar 
applications:  “Whether it is caused by intentional concealment, reckless disregard 
29 
for the truth, or an unreasonable refusal to perceive the need for disclosure, such 
an omission is itself strong evidence that the applicant lacks the „integrity‟ and/or 
„intellectual discernment‟ required to be an attorney.”  (Gossage, supra, at 
p. 1102, italics added.)   
Our review of the record indicates hypocrisy and evasiveness in Glass‟s 
testimony at the California State Bar hearing, as well.  We find it particularly 
disturbing that at the hearing Glass persisted in claiming that he had made a good 
faith effort to work with the magazines that published his works.  He went through 
many verbal twists and turns at the hearing to avoid acknowledging the obvious 
fact that in his New York bar application he exaggerated his level of assistance to 
the magazines that had published his fabrications, and that he omitted from his 
New York bar list of fabrications some that actually could have injured real 
persons.  He also testified that he told his lawyer to work with Harper‟s Magazine 
to identify his fabrications, yet evaded questions concerning whether his lawyer 
had done so, while insisting that he took responsibility for an inferred failure to 
follow what obviously were significant instructions.  He asserted that he had been 
too distraught to recognize that the list of fabrications The New Republic gave his 
lawyer was incomplete — or that in his response he had denied that articles 
including the egregious Taxis and the Meaning of Work were in fact fabricated — 
while acknowledging that within a few days of his firing he made arrangements to 
reschedule a final examination for the end of the exam period and did well on the 
exam he took within a week of his exposure.  Indeed, despite his many statements 
concerning taking personal responsibility, and contrary to what he suggested in his 
New York bar application, it was not until the California Bar proceedings that he 
shouldered the responsibility of reviewing the editorials his employers published 
disclosing his fabrications, thus failing to ensure that all his very public lies had 
been corrected publically and in a timely manner.  He has “not acted with the 
30 
„high degree of frankness and truthfulness‟ and the „high standard of integrity‟ 
required by this process.”  (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1102, italics added.) 
Honesty is absolutely fundamental in the practice of law; without it, 
“ „ “ „the profession is worse than valueless in the place it holds in the 
administration of justice.‟ ” ‟ ”  (Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 989.)  “[M]anifest 
dishonesty . . . provide[s] a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the applicant 
or attorney cannot be relied upon to fulfill the moral obligations incumbent upon 
members of the legal profession.”  (Hallinan, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 471.)  As the 
dissent in the Review Department pointed out, “if Glass were to fabricate evidence 
in legal matters as readily and effectively as he falsified material for magazine 
articles, the harm to the public and profession would be immeasurable.”   
We also observe that instead of directing his efforts at serving others in the 
community, much of Glass‟s energy since the end of his journalistic career seems 
to have been directed at advancing his own career and financial and emotional 
well-being. 
As Justice Kennard did in her concurring opinion in Kwasnik, supra, 50 
Cal.3d 1061, we do well to repeat Justice Felix Frankfurter‟s “eloquent 
description” of the moral character required of lawyers:  “ „It is a fair 
characterization of the lawyer‟s responsibility in our society that he [or she] stands 
“as a shield” . . . in defense of right and to ward off wrong.  From a profession 
charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-
speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance 
of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been 
compendiously described as “moral character.‟ ”  (Id. at p. 1076.)   
As for Glass‟s case for admission, although he points to his youth at the 
time of his employment as a journalist and an asserted period of rehabilitation of 
12 years (measured between the time he was fired and the hearing in the State Bar 
31 
Court), we have outlined instances of dishonesty and disingenuousness persisting 
throughout that period, including at the California State Bar evidentiary hearing.  
In addition, Glass‟s behavior was under the scrutiny of first the New York bar 
from 2002 to 2004, and then the California Bar from 2007 to 2010, reducing the 
probative value of the evidence of his good conduct during those periods.  “[G]ood 
conduct generally is expected from someone who has applied for admission with, 
and whose character is under scrutiny by, the State Bar.”  (Gossage, supra, 23 
Cal.4th at p. 1099; see also Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 989.)   
The Review Department majority relied heavily on the testimony of Glass‟s 
character witnesses, but the testimony of character witnesses will not suffice by 
itself to establish rehabilitation.  (Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 988.)  Moreover, 
stressing that Glass‟s reputation as a journalist had been exploded and that so 
many years had passed, some of the character witnesses did not sufficiently focus 
on the seriousness of the misconduct, incorrectly viewing it as of little current 
significance despite its lingering impact on its victims and on public perceptions 
concerning issues of race and politics.  They also did not take into account, as we 
do, that the misconduct reflected poorly on the particular commitment to honesty 
that Glass might have been expected to have had as a law student.  (See Rhodes v. 
State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 50, 60 [referring to “ „ “the fundamental rule of [legal] 
ethics — that of common honesty” ‟ ”].)  For these reasons we believe the Review 
Department majority accorded too much probative value to the testimony of 
Glass‟s character witnesses.   
Glass emphasized the remorse he expressed through his letters to victims, 
and characterized his novel and his appearance on 60 Minutes as efforts to make 
amends.  Remorse does not establish rehabilitation, however (Menna, supra, 11 
Cal.4th at p. 991), and in any event, the weight of this evidence is diminished 
because the letters were not written near the time of his misconduct and exposure, 
32 
when they might have been most meaningful to the victims, but rather seemed 
timed to coincide with his effort to become a member of the New York bar.  The 
novel served Glass‟s own purposes, producing notoriety and a fee of $175,000, 
and the appearance on 60 Minutes was timed to coincide with the release of the 
novel.  Glass did not offer any restitution to Lane or Bradley.  It was not until 
approximately 2008 that he made an offer to the then-friendly Peretz — who 
roundly disclaimed any interest in restitution — to repay his salary.  This offer 
was made after Glass applied to the California Bar and was another oddly belated 
and, we believe, disingenuous effort at making his victims whole. 
The record of Glass‟s therapy does not represent “truly exemplary conduct 
in the sense of returning something to the community.”  (Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th 
at p. 990.)  To be sure, through therapy he seems to have gained a deep 
understanding of the psychological sources of his misconduct, as well as tools to 
help him avoid succumbing to the same pressures again.  His treating psychiatrists 
are plainly highly competent and well regarded in their field, and they are 
convinced that he has no remaining psychological flaws tending to cause him to 
act dishonestly.  Glass believed that he could best make amends by changing 
himself.  But his 12 years of therapy primarily conferred a personal benefit on 
Glass himself.  (See ibid. [participation in Gamblers Anonymous was not “truly 
exemplary,” in part because of the substantial personal benefit it conferred on the 
applicant].)   
Glass points to the pro bono legal work he does for clients of his firm as 
evidence of sustained efforts on behalf of the community, but we observe that pro 
bono work is not truly exemplary for attorneys, but rather is expected of them.  
(See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6073.)   
Glass and the witnesses who supported his application stress his talent in 
the law and his commitment to the profession, and they argue that he has already 
33 
paid a high enough price for his misdeeds to warrant admission to the bar.  They 
emphasize his personal redemption, but we must recall that what is at stake is not 
compassion for Glass, who wishes to advance from being a supervised law clerk to 
enjoying a license to engage in the practice of law on an independent basis.  Given 
our duty to protect the public and maintain the integrity and high standards of the 
profession (see Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1105), our focus is on the 
applicant‟s moral fitness to practice law.  On this record, the applicant failed to 
carry his heavy burden of establishing his rehabilitation and current fitness. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, we reject the State Bar Court majority‟s 
recommendation and decline to admit Glass to the practice of law. 
 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion In re Glass on Admission 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding XXX 
Review Granted 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S196374 
Date Filed: January 27, 2014 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: 
County: 
Judge: 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Counsel: 
 
Law Offices of Michael A. Willemsen, Michael A. Willemsen; Eisenberg & Hancock, John B. Eisenberg, 
William N. Hancock; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Kent L. Richland; Margolis & Margolis, Susan L. 
Margolis and Arthur L. Margolis for Applicant Stephen Randall Glass. 
 
Aaron Nathan Shechet and Leigh Anne Chandler as Amici Curiae on behalf of Applicant Stephen Randall 
Glass. 
 
Starr Babcock, Richard J. Zanassi, Rachel Grunberg; and Brandon Tady for Petitioner Committee of Bar 
Examiners of The State Bar of California. 
 
Robert D. McMahon as Amicus Curiae. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
John B. Eisenberg 
Eisenberg & Hancock 
1970 Broadway, Suite 1200 
Oakland, CA  94612 
(510) 452-2581 
 
Rachel Grunberg 
The State Bar of California 
180 Howard Street 
San Francisco, CA  94105 
(415) 538-2309