Yesterday I posted a comment on the decision by the California Supreme Court to deny admission to Stephen Glass. (See here.) Today I found a comment by Prof. Shaun Martin (San Diego) in which he argues the decision is wrong. He makes a good argument for the position that Glass should have been admitted. It is worth reading (here).
Among other things, he argues "Is Glass likely to be a sleazy lawyer? No. No way. In large part (if not entirely) because of his prior misdeeds." And later concludes: "So if the relevant inquiry is (as it largely is) whether we believe that Glass will be a good and proper lawyer, who'll faithfully protect the interests of his clients, I think the answer's pretty clearly "yes"."
As I discussed in my previous post on the case, the key question in these cases is whether evidence of past conduct is a reliable indicator of future conduct. I know there is some research on this, but it is limited and I am not sure how much we can learn from it. If there was reliable research that helped answer the question with some degree of certainty then I would be fine relying on that answer. However, absent that, all we have is the human perception of those passing judgment on the conduct. They may be right or they may be wrong, but that is what we have.