Readers counter my take on the California Bar rejecting Stephen Glass:
I’m a lawyer, and I take my obligations – imposed by a rigorous code of ethics put in place by the state – very seriously. That code of ethics is designed to protect clients, who trust in their lawyer, and David Plotz’s “buyer beware” view is antithetical to that. (I also am required to make payments into a fund used to reimburse clients who are cheated by their attorneys, and I don’t think we need to add a known sociopathic liar into that pool.) While I agree that Mr. Glass deserves a second chance at a career, I don’t think that a career in a highly regulated profession that is governed by a strict code of ethics is the right place for a known liar who has already blown through one professional code. The right second chance for a money launderer isn’t working at a bank; the right second chance for a rapist isn’t as a guard in a women’s prison; and the right second chance for liar isn’t in a position of trust.
Another lawyer agrees:
It irks me that I’ve seen commentators (with a questionable grasp of legal concepts) argue that “lawyers = dishonesty, Glass = dishonesty, therefore Glass = lawyer”. Given the public’s palpable distrust of lawyers (and by extension the law and the courts), why should we worsen that view by allowing Glass to practice law?
Another:
California lawyer here, and one who is roughly a contemporary of Glass. I agree that the tone of the California Supreme Court decision is somewhat snide, but I do not disagree with the outcome. Even after his falsehoods as a journalist were discovered, Glass was dishonest on his application to the New York State Bar.
Later, he was not entirely honest on his application in California. Glass had the opportunity – twice – to complete bar applications with honesty and integrity. A lack of candor on an application for determination of moral fitness suggests the candidate has not rehabilitated himself, and should be disqualifying. End of story.
A paralegal studying for the LSAT:
Admission to a bar isn’t just about paying an obscene amount of money to a law school then passing a test. It requires a rigorous background check that ensures that each an every person admitted to that bar is a person of good moral character. If you want journalists to hold disgraced lawyers to that standard, then maybe journalists should create a licensing administration the way lawyers have. But I don’t think bars should cheapen theirs.
Others focus on the journalism side:
The First Amendment lets journalists lie (subject to libel laws) anytime they want. If their audience is happy with it, they can even make a lucrative career of it. Mr. Glass was apparently unlucky enough to have an audience who wasn’t happy with it.
Another:
As a litigator who spent 15 years in journalism (and still freelances occasionally for the NYT), I’d like to share my perspective regarding Glass. In concluding that journalists would be more forgiving of an ethically-challenged lawyer entering the field than lawyers apparently are of an ethically-challenged journalists, I think you’re missing a very important distinction here: Attorneys are trusted with great power when it comes to monies and liberties.
I can, with a subpoena and a signature, compel you to appear in front of me and answer questions – even if you are not a party to a lawsuit. I can likewise demand you hand over most of your documents, assuming I can make a case such a request is vaguely relevant. Moreover, in many cases the attorneys on the other side provide me with their client’s secrets and, as a rule, trust me to keep those secrets.
Almost all of my time billed is on the honor system – no one knows how much I am really working except myself. I am frequently entrusted with large sums of money that I am expected to turn over to my client. In other cases, my collegues will oversee even larger sums held in trust until the beneficiaries reach a certain age.
There are many more similar points/situations I could point out to you where trust and honesty are everything in our profession. So, yes, attorneys are probably harder on prospective attorneys than journalists might be on prospective journalists.
One more:
You conclude your post on Stephen Glass with the following: “Would journalists say that of an ethically challenged lawyer seeking to write about the news? I doubt it.”
We have an interesting parallel that proves your point. Henry Blodget, whose Business Insider is backed by Jeff Bezos, is a proven fraud and crook on a scale much larger than anything Glass did. Yet after agreeing to a lifetime ban from the securities industry (and a $2 million fine) for illegal and unethical acts that did far, far more direct and calculable damage than Glass’s misdeeds, Blodget is now considered a top entrepreneur and voice in American journalism. His rehabilitation, via Slate and elsewhere, is a real disgrace to American journalism. In a just universe, he would be forbidden to publish or benefit financially from anything having to do with business.
The Dish 