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.
Thank you for posting this, Professor. I don't think this blogger puts enough value on the fact that Glass systematically made up these stories, habitually threw-off fact-checkers, made more lies to back up his prior lies, and then didn't even both to inform the Reporter *particularly* which stories were wholly true and which ones were at least partially fabricated.
ReplyDeleteBut then, like you said, he reduces it to this one criteria of whether Glass would respect his clients' interests: "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"."
Except, that's not the only part the Court needed to consider. They need to consider whether he would be an effective, judicious, prudent officer *of the court* as well. I don't think he would. His history is so riddled with failing to adhere to basic, fundamental errs against journalistic ethics that I cannot conceive of him failing to do the same to an attorney's professional code of conduct.
Plus, the Court really does have to keep its moral status in order. Does it really want this high-profile, lying scumbag to be shown to all of California as a holder of "character and fitness?" This blogger doesn't get that it isn't just about Glass; it's about the entire judicial system in California. Admitting him would undoubtedly bring disrepute to their profession simply by admitting him.