Glass has recently stepped up his legal defense, adding Jon Eisenberg, an Oakland lawyer who won a judgment in 2010 against the U.S. government for wiretapping without a warrant, and veteran Southern California appellate specialist Kent Richland to his team. Still in place are Los Angeles professional responsibility specialists Arthur and Susan Margolis. Their argument? Not only has Glass matured in the last almost fifteen years, apologized and been forgiven by a host of his victims, but the California State Bar has itself acted unethically, as well as made impossible demands of Glass.
Quite arguably, it could well be said the issue of maturity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Clearly, the Committee of Bar Examiners agrees. Their position? “Glass should not be admitted to the practice of law until he re-establishes himself in journalism; Glass can never re-establish himself in journalism; therefore Glass should never be admitted to the practice of law.”
Now, there's some logic it would seem many of us could live with.
Glass, now almost forty years old, currently works as a law clerk at Beverly Hills plaintiffs firm Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley. How, one asks? While in the throes of what could only be described as his pathological journalistic endeavors, Glass, incredibly, found time to study at Georgetown University Law Center.
When he applied to the New York bar in 2002, the bar had concerns about his moral character, and he then withdrew his application. Imagine. Then, he moved to Los Angeles, passed the California exam in 2007, but came up against the same issues with the California bar.
A State Bar attorney handling the case, Rachel Grunberg, was quoted as having said in a recent interview that journalism and the law share common core values—“trust, candor, veracity, honor, respect for others,” and that Glass “violated every one of them.”
Hear, hear.
After being rejected, the independent State Bar Court reviewed Glass's case, and ruled in his favor. However, in recent months, the Committee of Bar Examiners convinced the California Supreme Court to review the case.
It's been over a decade since the highest court in the state has reviewed the moral character of a potential attorney; the last time it did so, it deemed a former heroin addict who'd murdered his sister over twenty years earlier was unfit to practice law as he'd continued committing misdemeanors, which included driving with a suspended license.
It would seem that being included in the same class as a homicidal recovering addict says quite a bit. One might put forth legitimately that Glass's actions in seeking admission to the bar – hell – in studying law, might be considered pathological, as well as eerily ironic. It would seem the only thing clear in this case is that Glass is again deceiving those around him and has done so quite successfully.
Thank God for the Committee of Bar Examiners, for at least attempting to save hapless clients from becoming Glass's next victims. It's just a shame whoever decided to admit him at Georgetown wasn't aware of his transgressions before doing so. Just think of all the time that could be better spent on issues worthy of a court's time.
Most rational people would agree that everyone deserves a second chance. But where does one draw the line? In Glass's case, it seems the facts speak, rather, scream, for themselves. Keep him out. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
