If the standard of good character being imposed on Glass were enforced consistently by the bar, I would have no problem with it. But we all know that Glass' main sin at this point is that he isn't a member of the tribe. Were he already in (if, say, he had joined the bar in CA before committing his journalistic misdeeds), he'd have no problem.

Glass is a spoiled arrogant brat who thinks he should get what he wants because he wants it. Let him do ten years of pro bono work if he's so hot to be a lawyer. There's something very weird about his insistence on this--surely he could find some other line of gainful employment.

Not sure we can accept Plotz' argument: 'Everyone knows Glass is a lying cur, so you should accept him in your professional association...'

Isn't this the same bar that warmly accepted an illegal immigrant into their ranks? oh, yea, here it is.

Oh, and if you're wondering what the big deal is about an illegal immigrant being accepted into the bar, it's because they become an officer of the court.

Which means they're supposed to uphold and abide by the laws.

Should the California Bar Association a private organization, and Professional board be forced to admit people who don't meet their ethical standards? However arbitrary they may seem?

Bill Clinton is a disbarred Attorney last I checked.

Being a member of the bar is only loosely associated with making a living in the law field. It is not an entitlement or a civil right.

If the Bar cant be allowed to determine their own standards for membership, who should be able to determine them?

If arrogance was enough to keep one out of the profession, far fewer of us would be left.

Since one of the Bar's functions is to provide a bit of quality control for the market place, it's fair game for the market to pipe up about what the standards are and how they're applied.

People generally do not have the option of being represented by an unlicensed attorney, so this feedback is in lieu of voting with one's wallet.

...ended up getting a law degree and passing the bar exam in both New York and California-- but there's a hitch. He tried to get licensed in California but the California Supreme court unanimously ruled that this should not be allowed.

He withdrew his 2004 application for a license in New York because he was advised that it would be rejected.

Reputations are forever - like social media pictures of you drunk in Mexico on Spring Break.

Being a lawyer means that judges (and other lawyers) must have confidence that the evidence you present as true is honestly presented, no matter how repugnant a personality you may be.

When you gain a national and very public reputation as a serial liar and sociopath, you should not be surprised when you have difficulty being admitted to the legal profession.

In fact, once such a reputation is gained, the legal profession is one you probably should avoid attempting to enter. Banking and finance also require extensive background checks and a reputation for honesty.

Glass has been a successful and highly-regarded paralegal. That may be limit of his progression in the legal profession - sort of a "glass ceiling."

Ba-Dumph! I'm here all week folks. Be sure to tip your bartenders and waitresses.

Being a member of the bar is only loosely associated with making a living in the law field. It is not an entitlement or a civil right.

Sure it is. Everyone is entitled to make a living. No job should require a license unless there's a real problem with incompetent people in it, and even then the authority should be compelled to license every competent applicant.

If the Bar cant be allowed to determine their own standards for membership, who should be able to determine them?

Let each client decide whom to hire. As "Conan" put it above, reputations are forever.

I stole a bunch of shit from my employer in 1990 and now the financial firm I work for and that sponsers me cant seem to find any institution that will grant me licenses to move up in my career.

Also I used to steal alot but now that you know that it guarantees you I cant steal from you because youll always have YOUR guard up right right?

Let each client decide whom to hire. As "Conan" put it above, reputations are forever.

Posted by: jdgalt at January 28, 2014 10:24 AM

A law firm or a client can hire an educated legal professional to do quite a bit of work. What membership in the bar usually grants you is the ability to go into court, as an officer of the court. That is what bar membership is for.
Each state gets to set their own rules. Want to change that in your state? Work through the legislature, but don't expect the feds to impose some grand sweeping solution to match your view of freedom to contract.

> reputations are forever.

Only for those who know of them. Certifications are meant to supplant reputations... The issuing agency is promising that you don't need to investigate further than their seal.

You know you've hit rock bottom when lawyers won't even accept you.

Nothing left for him now but the world's oldest profession:

Politics.

Let him do ten years of pro bono work if he's so hot to be a lawyer.

1 Hows he seupposed to eat while working for free
2 Apparently he has been working for a pro bono firm

Should the California Bar Association a private organization, and Professional board be forced to admit people who don't meet their ethical standards? However arbitrary they may seem?

Good question, I've got as better one. Should the California Bar Association a private organization have any say in whether a person not a member of their "private organization" gets to earn money.

Its a private organization right? You think the local Elks club should be able to bar bartenders from working in the VFW's club house

Its a private organization right? You think the local Elks club should be able to bar bartenders from working in the VFW's club house

Posted by: lujlp at January 28, 2014 5:30 PM

Do you think the Professional board of Civil Engineers should allow just anyone to design buildings and bridges?

And do you think the electricians union should allow just anyone to install wiring and circuit breakers?

We allow anyone to write and pass the laws.

He's been working as a paralegal. He's getting paid. He can stay working there and do pro bono work, too. Or he can park cars.

Do you think the Professional board of Civil Engineers should allow just anyone to design buildings and bridges?

Are they a private club or a government regulatory body? Cause you cant be both. A private club can do whatever the fuck they want. A government body/agency has to follow the rule of law. And as far as I can tell, "Sure he's qualified and no one has a bad thing to say about him or his work ethic, but I dont think 20yrs of rehabilitation is enough for HIM" is listed under acceptable reasons for denying self employment.

And do you think the electricians union should allow just anyone to install wiring and circuit breakers?

Who fucking cares? I worked a number of job site with my father over several summers. I know more about wiring than many apprentice level and a few journeymen level electricians.

Now the fact that I dont have certification might bar me from employment, but the fact that a private club refuses to allow me entry shouldnt matter.

In other words: He's transparent because we all know how completely dishonest he is.

The shit that I didn't, and still don't, give about Steven Glass is still without boundary. I couldn't give less of a fuck if the California Orange Julius Court ruled he couldn't work in the mall.

VF piece on Glass.

See also, Moynihan on Lehrer.

Q & A with Moynihan. Note that as with Glass, the lies continued with pathological detachment after exposure.

The Lehrer thing hurt, because this was a brilliant article about a need for refinement in the practice of science now being sustained by investigation on several continents. (Google the name "Ioannidis," or ask me for more articles. I have a couple dozen.)

It's a TREMENDOUS testament to the simplicity and aggression of the New Yorker's face-checking and editorial ferocity that not one word of that Lehrer piece needed to be withdrawn.

I nonetheless feel dirty for having liked it so much.

Fact-checking, not face-checking.

I have no editorial support here.

"We allow anyone to write and pass the laws."
And we have elected Presidents who, could not obtain a security clearance to do the job of the officers and men they then commanded.

I'm not a fan of mandatory bar membership in the age of the internet. Let the market decide whether the vetting has value.

That said, the world is better off for keeping this guy on a short leash, for anchoring his legal work to a law firm or licensed attorney that keeps an eye on him like their liability depends on it (because it does).

There are tenants of the profession that require attorneys to do the right thing when no one is watching, such as hand over exculpatory evidence, or privileged documents that were incorrectly given by opposing counsel.

All we know is that he has behaved well under close supervision. And that he's not among the licensed attorneys who have managed to be dishonest without getting caught.