- Magazine writer fired for fabricating stories in late '90s wants to be a lawyer
- California Supreme Court will decide if Stephen Glass is morally fit to practice law
- Court files paint compelling story of young man driven to please parents, peers
- Attorney, friends, boss say he's changed; bar examiners, others not so sure
Stephen Glass, the whiz-kid magazine writer exposed 13 years ago as a serial fabricator, is telling what may be his most compelling story yet -- his own. He swears he's not making it up, and he's asking California's highest court to believe him and give him a chance.
Glass, who graduated in 2000 from Georgetown's law school, works as a paralegal for a firm in Beverly Hills, California. But he really wants to be a lawyer, and he insists he's remorseful, reformed and committed to telling the truth. Others aren't so sure, which is why a bar application that usually would be a no-brainer is taking five years and counting.
There is no question that Glass is brilliant, and he easily passed the bar exams in New York and California. But his budding legal career has become snagged on the jagged rocks of good character and moral fitness.
The latest installment in the infamous fabulist's saga is contained in a thick file at the California Supreme Court. Opened to the public late last month, it finally offers an explanation for why Glass once felt driven to publish lie after lie, and then lie some more to cover it all up. But this case also raises some difficult questions: Can he, should he be forgiven? Is his redemption even possible? Or, once a liar, always a liar?
"Maybe there are certain types of behavior you never get over," said Arnold Siegel, an ethics professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. But, he added, "The Bar has a fairly compassionate view. They do believe in rehabilitation."
Adam Penenberg, the writer who first outed Glass' lies in 1998, took a more ironic view:
"When I first learned of Glass' quest to join the legal profession, I thought, Christ, it's been 13 years. And, since when does lying disqualify someone from being a lawyer? Let the guy earn a living," he wrote for fastcompany.com. "Leave it to Glass to disgrace himself in one mistrusted profession only to apply to another."
Lawyers and journalists aren't highly regarded, although they usually rank a notch above lobbyists, members of Congress and used car salespeople in Gallup's annual Honesty and Ethics survey. Nurses, teachers and doctors are considered the most trustworthy professionals. Glass' father was a doctor, and his mother a nurse, and they didn't think much of lawyers or journalists, which is a big part of his story.
Glass insists he has undergone a dramatic character change, even if he looks very much the same as he nears 40 as he did at 25 -- wiry with short brown hair and glasses, the prototypical nerd. One of his psychiatrists explains that as an immature young man, Glass was so eager to succeed that his lying became compulsive, like a gambler's high. He lied and lied and lied until he lost it all.
Glass and his supporters say he is now almost compulsive about the truth -- to the point where he usually volunteers that he is that Stephen Glass, and even went back to a store to return excess change he'd been given.
But he shouldn't be permitted to simply gloss over his past, Rachel Grunberg, associate counsel for the California State Bar, said in an interview with CNN. "Given the egregiousness of Glass' past misconduct, that goes to the heart of what we look at -- truthfulness, honesty, respect for others."
Those aren't traits magazine editor Richard Bradley associates with the Stephen Glass he knew in 1998. At least three of the pieces Glass wrote for him at George magazine contained fabrications, he told CNN. The bulk of Glass' lies were concocted at The New Republic, a small but influential magazine, where he was unmasked as a serial faker and fired.
"Steve was figuring out people's blind spots -- their biases, prejudices -- including myself. He wrote pieces that benefited him at the expense of those people," said Bradley, now the editor-in-chief of Worth magazine. "I do forgive Steve, but being a lawyer is a privilege, not a right," he added. "He can be a fully contributing, valuable member of society without being a lawyer."
Glass withdrew his application to the New York State Bar in 2003, when it became obvious he would be turned down. He applied to the California Bar in 2005, after he moved to Los Angeles. The bar committee declined to find him morally fit to be a lawyer; Glass appealed and the State Bar Court sided with him last year. The California Supreme Court will have the final word, having added "In Re Glass on Admission" to its docket for 2012.
Everyone agrees that what Glass did in 1998 was inexcusable. But, as the State Bar Court points out, the past is not the issue: it's Glass' moral character today. The bar examiners -- the lawyers who vet other lawyers -- argue that Glass' lies were so "staggering" he hasn't done enough to demonstrate he has reformed.
"Going to law school and living a normal life isn't enough," Grunberg said.
If Glass "were to fabricate evidence in legal matters as readily and effectively as he falsified material for magazine articles, the harm to the public and the profession would be immeasurable," observed State Bar Court Judge Catherine Purcell, dissenting from two other judges who found Glass morally fit to practice law.
Glass' lawyer, Arthur Margolis, argues that his client has indeed changed and that the sins of a callow 25-year-old won't be repeated: "He is now 39. The overwhelming evidence testifies to his maturation, reformation and rehabilitation over the past 13 years."
Without a doubt, Glass knows how to tell a great story. His eye for whimsical detail and ear for the salient quote made him Washington's journalistic darling. An internal investigation at The New Republic revealed that more than half of his stories had been fudged in some way -- starting with a quote here and an anecdote there until entire stories were pure fiction. Even the notes, e-mail and voice mail messages that were supposed to back up his stories were faked.
Friends and colleagues felt betrayed by the amusing but insecure boy wonder. His dream profession -- journalism -- took a credibility hit, and Glass holed up in his apartment, cringing and crying as he was hounded by reporters who were like him in so many ways -- except that they sought the truth: Why'd you do it, Steve?
Part One: The Failure
Glass didn't really have an answer until now, and he says it took years of psychotherapy to find it. His quasi-autobiographical 2003 novel, "The Fabulist," didn't come close to telling the story the California Bar has heard.
He turned down CNN's request for an interview. His past attempts to explain have been viewed by some as self-serving, and so he has little to gain and much to lose by speaking out as he awaits the court's decision. Almost all of his supporters also declined to comment, as did one of his most vocal critics, Charles Lane, the former editor who investigated Glass' lies at The New Republic.
Of those who know Glass, only Bradley and a former law school professor would talk to CNN; besides their words, we're left with what was said in the court papers. The thick court file reveals that Glass has won over