GLASS ON ADMISSION

Committee of Bar Examiners’ Petition for Writ of Review

Cal.September 12, 2011

S$1963'74 CONFIDENTIAL 5 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AR lh=e ) Case No. S . ) = COURTSUPREME C STEPHEN RANDALL GLASS, FILED Frederiak Oninich WiGik acenasCR =Deputy PETITION OF THE COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERSOF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA FOR WRIT OF REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE STATE BAR COURT REVIEW DEPARTMENT CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6060.2; CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE-935{d) A.15Cd) ‘Starr Babcock, State Bar No. 63473 Richard J. Zanassi, State Bar No. 105044 Rachel Grunberg, State Bar No. 197080 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL ° THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA 180 HowardStreet San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 538-2309 Facsimile: (415) 538-2321 Email: ogc@calbar.ca.gov Attorneys for Petitioner The Committee of Bar Examiners of The State Bar of California OF COUNSEL: Brandon Tady, State Bar No. 83045 I. I. | IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.....ccccssccscssssssssersssesesscsssesessesecsesessessesesessesssetsasesess 1 ISSUES PRESENTED 1.0... eeecseceessesesceetsesesseeceneeseesoeessessoeessaecaeeensnecaeesseeeasenesaeenes 4 GROUNDSFOR REVIEW OF STATE BAR COURT DECISION...eee 5 STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE ......eeecssccesesscceseeeeneeeanseeeeceeseeeseeseetaesenseeeeeeaeeaees 5 STATEMENTOF FACTSooo. cceeecceeseeeeseesceeseesnecseesseeseeeeeseeceaeeceeeeseeeseerateeseatens 6 A. Applicant Is The Perpetrator Of One Of The MostSignificant Cases Of Journalistic Fraud In History ..........cccecsessssecceeneeesneeeceeeeeseoeeneneeeas 7 1. Both The Dissenting And Majority Opinions Recognized Gravity Of Applicant’s Misconduct.......... eeeeseuseeseesenseeaeeeenesesaesesenens 7 2. Applicant’s Far-Reaching Acts Of Serial Fraud And Fabrication Promoted His Own Self-Interests At The Expense OfHis Colleagues, His Profession, The Targets OfHis Articles, And The Public........cccccccccscccssesecesvecssesssneesecsseneeees 8 3. Once Applicant’s Actions Were Discovered He Attempted To Further Deceive TNR In Order To Preserve His Reputation............cccessscsssseeecccsseceeeneeeeeeeneeees decsesecennnees 11 4. Applicant’s Articles Were Frequently Cruel And Mean-Spirited 0.0... eesecseeccecssnceeesesseeeneeeseeeeseaaeeesseeseeeseseeseersees 14 5. Applicant’s Serial Fabrications Caused Extensive Harm.............. 17 6. Applicant’s Misconduct Is So Significant, It Is Permanently Memorialized In A National Museum Exhibit Showcasing Journalistic Fraud... eeseeeseeeeeeseeeeeteeeeees 19 7. Applicant Failed To Re-Establish Himself In The Journalism Community .......cceecesscsssecsceeeseecessneeseeneecneeeeseeeseenesenes 20 B. Applicant’s Conduct Since He Was Exposed Has Not Been Exemplary When Balanced Against The Magnitude OfHis Acts OfDeceit...eeeeeeseeeceeeseesseesaeeceeeseceecsanecsasenesesasenseeseacens 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages A Summary of Applicant’s Actions Since His Termination At TNR .o..cceececceesessesreeseesscsseessessensceesssesstnsssenseseannees 21 Applicant Failed To Publicly Identify All Of The Fabricated Articles He Authored At TVR And Those Articles Continue To Remain In The Public Domain... 23 Applicant Failed To Publicly Identify His Fabrications In Articles Published By George Magazine And One Article Published By Harper ’s Magazine .........cccesssseeseesessessteees 25 Applicant Benefited Monetarily From His Acts Of Deception And Made No Effort To Voluntarily Disgorge Those Profits ...... cee esssseestscsseesnseseessesssessascseessecseeeseeenes 26 The Timing Of Applicant’s Apology Letters Coincide With His Pending New York Bar Application And The Publication Of His Novel... ccseccesesesseeeseeessneeseseseseesseessesseaseeees 27 Applicant’s Misconduct Prevented His Admission To The New York Bar And He Withdrew His New York Bar Application After Notice OfAn Impending Unfavorable Moral Character Determination............ccceeesseeeeeeees 28 Applicant Was Less Than Forthright On His New York Bar Application... ceesssscessssseeseesseessescsesesaseesessasesesserssasesanearengs 29 VI. ARGUMENT..........cccccscssssesseescsereseeccesonecenesanecessecceeesesenetessecsueesesnsasseaveesenessaseatenss 30 A. InLight OfThe Uncontroverted Evidence OfApplicant’s Massive Fraud, Applicant Failed To Establish The High Level Of Rehabilitation Necessary To OvercomeHisPrior Misconduct, Consistent With This Court’s Mandates In In re Menna And In re GOSSARC..cccsesccssssscccesesseeetsseeessneesneeseesesseneeeensensees 30 No Sustained Period of Time to Demonstrate Reform............000 32 No Compelling Showing ofExemplary Conduct...eee 33 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages a. Applicant Did Not Disgorge the Profits from His Course of Serial Fraud .........cecsescssecssecsecsseseesereseresneeneenes 33 b. Applicant Omitted Information and Made Misrepresentations on His 2003 New York Bar Application and Declaration ...........cccscccseeceeseeeeeteeeens 34 i. Applicantfailed to include a complete list of his fabricated WOrKS..........ssseecseseseeeeeeesteeeeeees 34 ii. Applicant mischaracterized the assistance he gave to the magazines after the scandal broke... eeeeseeeseeneenerteseeeeees 35 c. Applicant’s Apologies in 2003 Appeared Insincere and Self-Serving ........cscccssscssssessseecssseseseccesesscescsseessatesaeeeaees 36 d. Applicant’s Appearance on “60 Minutes” Also Appears Self-Serving ....... cc ccesccsssecsseeesscessneceaeessnessaceeseeenes 37 e. Applicant’s Own Therapist Admitted He WasStill in the Process of Understanding and Accepting His Past Misconduct .0.......ccseessecesneeeceeseeeeeeeereneereaereeeesenete 38 f. Character References Are Not Enough...ceeeeeereeseeteees 39 g. Applicant Failed to Make Amendsto the Journalism Community, to which He Brought Shame and Dishonor... eeseesseeseeseeteeeesescneeeserseeeseerseeaes 4] B. Given The Serious Nature Of Applicant’s Misconduct, The State Bar Court Erred In Resolving All Reasonable Doubts About Applicant’s Rehabilitation In His Favor... .cccecesseesssesenecseeeeeees 42 VIL. CONCLUSION 00eeeceeeeseeesneesecereneecanecneseneessseseesanseseseaeenseesaesasesseseseesereneeas 44 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pages Cases Inre Gossage (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 130, 5 P.3d 186]... 4,30,32,35,43 Hall v. Committee ofBar Examiners (197¢) 25 Cal.3d 730 [159 Cal.Rptr. 848, 602 P.2d 768]... cceeesessseeereteeeseetees 32 Hipolito v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 621 [257 Cal.Rptr. 331, 770 P.2d 743] oo. eeeeeseeseeeeeeeereeers 36-7 Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1061 [269 Cal.Rptr. 749, 791 P.2d 319]... eeseeseeeeesteeteeeeees 32 Martin B. v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1983) 33 Cal.3d 717 [190 Cal.Rptr. 610, 661 P.2d 160]... eeeeseeetetteeeerenres 32 Inre Menna (1995) 11 Cal.4th 975 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 905 P.2d 944]... 6,30,32,37,38,41-3 Seide v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1989) 49 Cal.3d 933 [264 Cal.Rptr. 361, 782 P.2d 602]... .csececsseesessssreeenen 33,40 Rules California Rules of Court Rule 9.15 veeecceesesseeseeseeeeserseeeaseesersaseseeseeseaeesevseeesessoneceseessereseseacessusesassneseesensenss 6 Rule 9.150) ooo eeceesessecsecennecseesneseeesseessersaseseersseaeesasesasersneseesssaseasseessassnesseseateases 5 Rule 9.16(a)(1) ...ccecccssecscsneessceseesseessesseesseessessneseeececsacesesecseseeeeesesenesasesseeneesnesatessens 6 Rule 9,16(a)(4) ..cceecesccescessceesesscesseecseeeneeseeeaeessceeseenessaesaeeesaeesseessnerseceaeesseseneseessenenes 5 Rule 9.16(a)(5) ....scssccsesseceneceeceseeesecnsecseeseeseecsnsvsceseesorenarecesessaeesenesaeesaseaerseesserseseees 5 Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California Title IV: Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct Standard 1.2(€)(Vit) ..ccccceccccsscccssneeessssessceeseseeecssscsseesesseaeaeceseecesenneeeesnseeseaerenneeenaes 37 Statutes Business and Professions Code Section 6068, subdivision (C)..........esceesscssccessecssevseesseressnecseecceeaeeareecssesaeeneneseeees 44 iv IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Case No. S STEPHEN RANDALL GLASS, N e w e e N e N e e ” Applicant for Admission. ) PETITION OF THE COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERSOF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA FOR WRIT OF REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE STATE BAR COURT REVIEW DEPARTMENT I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Stephen Randall Glass (“Applicant”), an applicant for admission to practice law in California, is the perpetrator of one of the greatest journalistic frauds in history. Over a period of more than two years, he spun a web oflies and deceit, taking advantage of those whotrusted him and authoring over 40 fabricated articles that were published in national magazines and widely disseminated in the public domain. Strikingly, Applicant authored several of these stories while he was in law school. Had Applicant not been caught, it was highly likely that his fraudulent behavior would have continued. Unable to gain admission to the New York Bar in 2004 because of moral character concerns, and having failed to re-establish his standing as a professional journalist, Applicant moved to California, passed the California Bar Examination, and now seeksto becomea licensed attorney in this state. In a 2-1 Decision, a majority of the State Bar Court Review Department recommendedthat Applicantbe certified for admission to practice law.' However, the Committee of Bar Examiners (“the Committee”) opposes his application and requests that this Court set aside the Review Department’s Decision given the seriousness of Applicant’s misconduct and the lack of any meaningful and sustained moral rehabilitation. The record, as demonstrated below, clearly establishes that Applicant’s misconduct caused significant harm to the subjects of his libelous stories and the reputations of the magazines that published the works — including the editors, staff, and affiliated colleagues. On a much broader scale, Applicant’s wrongdoings profoundly and indelibly impacted the entire readership of the magazines and ultimately undermined the integrity of the journalism profession as a whole. Applicant’s conduct was of such magnitude that it was covered extensively by the media and even becamethetopic of a “60 Minutes” episode, a major motion picture, a novel, and a museum exhibit in Washington D.C.— all ofwhich permanently memorialize the massive fraud perpetrated by Applicant on the American public and the journalistic community. Despite its ultimate decision recommending admission, even the Review Department had to admit that Applicant’s behavior was “appalling” and “his fraud was of staggering proportions.” (Review Department Decision,pp.4, 5.) It is the Committee’s position that when considering someone with Applicant’s remarkable record of fraud and deceit, the State Bar of California (“State Bar’) should 1 The Review Department Opinion is attached at Appendix A; the Hearing Department Decision at Appendix B. demand nothing less than exemplary behavior over a sustained period oftime — that is, an unblemished record coupled with outstanding conduct, which goes beyondthe ordinary. This standard is necessary in a case such as this, where an applicant’s past misdeeds compromise the very foundation of the legal profession —- common honesty, trustworthiness, virtue, and candor. While Applicant has provided some evidence of rehabilitation, in light of the egregious acts he committed, he must do morethanjust live an acceptable lifestyle. He must be proactive and attempt to correct the wrongsthat he imposed upon others. Applicant has failed to meet his burden. A strong dissent agrees — “Applicant did not show proofofreform by a lengthy period of exemplary conductto justify his admission.” (Review Department Dissenting Opinion, p. 19.) When his conduct was first called into question in 1998, instead of coming clean, his immediate response was to attempt to cover up the concerns by engaging in a pattern of deception in order to preserve his career and reputation; he failed to assist the magazines in indentifying the full list of fabricated articles and only just disclosed the complete list in connection with these moral character proceedings; he made misrepresentations to the New York Bar in 2003 and had to withdraw his application for admission because of moral character concerns; in a self-serving manner, he timed the sending of his apologyletters and his public appearance on “60 Minutes”to coincide with the release of his novel andhis application for admission to the New York Bar; he failed to disgorge the monies he made from authoring the fraudulent articles and the substantial profits he received from the publication of his novel; and he failed to try to re-establish his standing as a journalist or 3 make an impressive showing of any meaningful outreach to the journalistic community, which he so disgraced. Contrary to the Review Department’s findings, the Committee was not simply “carried away bythe distant tide of [Applicant]’s earlier misconduct” (see Review Department Opinion, p. 15); rather, the Committee believes that in light of his prior bad acts, Applicant has a heavy burden to meet and hasfallen far short in this regard. The Committee further contends that the State Bar Court erred in resolving all reasonable doubts in Applicant’s favor. The standard applied by the State Bar Court does not comport with this Court’s holding that “[w]here serious or criminal misconductis involved, positive inferences about the applicant's moral character are moredifficult to draw, and negative character inferences are stronger and more reasonable.” (Jn re Gossage (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080, 1098 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 130, 5 P.3d 186].) Had the State Bar Court applied the correct standard in determining whether the requisite showing of rehabilitation had been made,the result, in all likelihood, would have differed. Accordingly, the Committee of Bar Examiners respectfully requests that this Court, consistent with its duty to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the profession, reverse the decision of the State Bar Court. Il. ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Did Applicant demonstrate exemplary conduct over a sustained period oftime, when weighed against the extremely egregious and pervasive nature ofhis prior fraudulent misconduct? 2, Where Applicant’s record of fabrication and deceit is serious and undisputed, did 4 the State Bar Court err in resolving all reasonable doubts in Applicant’s favorif equally reasonably inferences could have been drawn from the evidence? Ill. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF STATE BAR COURT DECISION A petition before this Court is appropriate at this time, as review within the State Bar Court has been exhausted. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.15(b).) Moreover, the State Bar Court Decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence (see Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.16(a)(4)), and review is necessary to settle important questions of law in the context of State Bar moral character proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.16(a)(1).) IV. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE In July 2007, Applicant filed a Confidential Application and Questionnaire for Determination of Moral Character. (Review Department Opinion,p.1.) In February 2009, the Committee of Bar Examiners declined to certify Applicant’s moral character. Applicant thereafter sought review of the Committee’sdecision in the State Bar Court. On August 9, 2010, the Hearing Department foundthat Applicant possessed the requisite good moral character required for admission to practice law in California. (Review Department Opinion, p. 1.) The Committee sought review and on July 13, 2011, the Review Departmentissued its Opinion. A majorityof the Review Department(in a 2-1 decision) found Applicant’s behavior “appalling”; the magnitude of his misconduct “staggering”; and his behavior reprehensible in that he created “long lasting harm on people who hadn’t done anything wrong”and then he simply “ran away.” (Review Department Opinion, pp. 4-5.) The majority nevertheless found that Applicant established his rehabilitation from 5 his past moral shortcomings and concluded that he should be certified for admission to practice law. The dissenting opinion foundthat given the magnitude of Applicant’s misconduct and his subsequent misrepresentation in his 2003 New York Barapplication, he failed to show “proof of reform by a lengthy period of exemplary conduct which ‘we could with confidence lay before the world’ to justify his admission.” (Review Department Dissenting Opinion, pp. 18-19 [citing In re Menna (1995) 11 Cal.4th 975, 989 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 905 P.2d 944].) Pursuantto rule 9.15, California Rules of Court, the Committee now seeks review of the Decision of the Review Department. V. STATEMENT OF FACTS A summary of Applicant’s primafacie evidence of good moral character, the Committee’s rebuttal evidence, and evidence ofrehabilitation is set forth in the Hearing Department Decision and the Review Department Opinion. (Hearing Department Decision, pp. 3-25; Review Department Opinion, pp. 2-14.) The facts below. underscore the extent of Applicant’s egregious misconduct and his inability to establish rehabilitation. 2 In a moral character proceeding, the Applicant must present aprimafacie case of good moral character. Here, this relatively easy showing was met by Applicant. Next, the Committee must satisfy its burden of rebutting Applicant’s primafacie case of good moral character, which it also was able to do easily based primarily on the serial fraud committed by Applicant between 1996 and 1998. The burden thenshifts to the Applicant to demonstrate moral rehabilitation. In this case, the majority found that Applicant met his burden. The minority disagreed, finding that although Applicant provided some evidence of reform, he did not show proofofrehabilitation by a lengthy period of exemplary conduct. A. Applicant Is The Perpetrator Of One Of The Most Significant Cases Of Journalistic Fraud In History. 1. Both The Dissenting And Majority Opinions Recognized The Gravity Of Applicant’s Misconduct. The dissenting opinion best captures the pervasive scope of Applicant’s misconduct: Mycolleagues acknowledgethat from 1996 to 1998, Glass perpetrated a fraud of “staggering” proportions. He usedhis exceptional writing skills to publicly and falsely malign people and organizations for actionsthey did not do and for faults they did not have. He even created fake newsletters, voicemail boxes and a website to support his fabricated articles. For two years, Glass engaged in a multi-layered, complex and harmful course of public dishonesty. (Review Department Dissenting Opinion,p. 18.) Even the Review Department majority recognized the severity of Applicant’s misconduct: The scope ofthe fraudin this case is staggering. Between July 1996 and May 1998,all but a handful of the articles authored by Glass were fabricated to some degree (fn. omitted), including those published by TNR and by magazines such as The Policy Review, George, Rolling Stone, and Harper’s. Glass invented sources, events and organizations, and he concocted quotes. These falsehoods added potency and colorto his writing, but he often used them to demean his subjects, resulting in stories that were meanspirited. (Review Department Opinion,p. 4.) Glass’s misconductclearly showeda ‘disregard of the fundamentalrule of ethics-that of common honesty... [Citation].’ (Borre v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1047, 1053.) In constructing his tangled web, Glass exploited his colleagues’ trust and he caused immeasurable reputational harm to the subjects of his articles and to the magazines that vouchedforhis veracity. The magazines also were burdened with re-checking the accuracyofall of his articles to defend against potential libel claims, and that at least one magazine actually was required to defenditself in defamation lawsuits. 7 The formereditor of George aptly described the sorry situation that Glass created: ‘Instead of using his gifts to try to make the world a better place, [Glass] mined the crudest of raw material of our fallible human natures. And then heputit all on paper, where it could inflict tangible, long-lasting harm on people who hadn’t done anything wrong, and ran away....’ (Review Department Opinion,p. 5.) 2. Applicant’s Far-Reaching Acts Of Serial Fraud And Fabrication Promoted His Own Self-Interests At The Expense Of His Colleagues, His Profession, The Targets Of His Articles, And The Public. Applicant was employed at The New Republic (“TNR”) from September 1995 through May 1998. (Reporter’s Transcript “RT,” Vol. V, pp. 97/11-99/3; State Bar Exhibit 2, p. 2.) From July 1996 until May of 1998, when he was terminated from TNR, Applicant was responsible for “one of the most substantial cases ofjournalistic fraud in history.” (State Bar Exhibit 2; RT, Vol. IL, p. 119/14-15.)° Applicant’s saga began after he accepted a one-year internship position as a “reporter-researcher” with TNR, which was considered one ofthe most prestigious internships available to a young journalist. (RT, Vol. V, pp. 96/8-14, 98/25-99/9.) Applicanttestified that he wanted to succeed as a writer at VR, but whenhefirst began workthere nobody wasinterested in any of his articles. He believed he wasfailing and would not be invited to join TNR after his internship ended. (RT, Vol. V, pp. 99/19- 100/23.) 3 Duringpart of the time Applicant was committing journalistic fraud, he was also enrolled as a law student at Georgetown University. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 5; RT, Vol. I, p. 111/2-11; RT, Vol. IX, p. 34/10-14.) Susan Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown, acknowledgedthat from the very beginning of a law student’s education, the Georgetown faculty tries to emphasize the importanceoflegal ethics in all of the coursesthatit offers, even if those courses are not specifically focused on ethical issues. (RT, Vol. I, pp. 110/20-111/1.) In or about May 1996, during his employment at TVR, Applicant authored an article entitled “The Hall Monitor,” in which he fabricated quotes from two unnamed sources in a published story about United States Representative Pete Hoekstra. (RT, Vol. V, pp. 101/9-102/19, 110/6-11.) Applicanttestified that he lied because he wanted to write an “A plus”article and did not want to “wash out” at ZNVR. (RT, Vol. V, pp. 118/23-119/4.) At the end of his internship, Applicant was hired by TNR asan assistant editor. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 5/21-6/5.) After authoring “The Hall Monitor”article, Applicant continued on his path oflies and fabrications. From July 1996 through May 1998, Applicant authored 35 more articles published by TNR that contained lies. Somearticles were entirely fabricated, while others contained various degrees of lies. (State Bar Exhibit 1 pp. 509-512; State Bar Exhibit 2; RT, Vol. V, p. 102/20-23.) After he began his fabrications, more ofhis articles started being published. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 31/19-22.) His success at TNR, based on his secret lies and fabrications, opened up opportunities for him to freelance for other magazines, and in so doing he beganwriting fabricated articles for other publications, including Harper’s, George, Rolling Stone, and Policy Review. In total, over a two-year period, Applicant authored 42 articles — some fully fabricated, some partially fabricated, but each containing some degreeoflies. (State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 238-244; State Bar Exhibit 2; RT, Vol. V, pp. 86/18-25, 131/13-14.) Applicant’s acts were calculated, and he used various techniques, based in part upon his past experienceas a fact-checker, to subvert the process and get his fabrications published. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 21/2-12, 24/3-28/13; State Bar Exhibit 35.) 9 In May 1998, Applicant authored an entirely fabricated article called “Hack Heaven.” When TNR becameawarethat the article was fabricated, Applicant was fired. At the time of Applicant’s firing, TVR did not know the extent of the fabrications. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 41/11-46/18.) Moreover, when Applicant was caught, he was working on two other fabricated articles that were never published, one for the New York Times and one for George. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 35/23-36/24, 37/5-38/24.) Applicanttestified that he lied because he enjoyed the excitement and success that the lies brought him.° He acknowledged that what people liked most abouthis articles were parts containing the falsehoods. (RT, Vol. V, pp. 124/7-125/8.) Whenhefirst started at TNR, he believed his contributions were meaningless and valueless. However, as he began fabricating and his fabrications increased, people would get joy out of reading his stories. (State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 32-33, 506-508; RT, Vol. V, pp. 112/4-115/15.) He loved that people liked what he was doing and he neverfelt better during those moments. (RT, Vol. V, p. 116/4-12.) He was one of the more popular people in the office and wascalled “The Hub” because he wasthe hub ofall the office activity. (RT, Vol. II, p. 11/6-8.) The fabrication period was punctuated with moments of more pleasure than he had previously known. (RT, Vol. V, p. 123/1-3.) 4 Hack Heavendescribesa fictitious, 15-year old computer hacker, named “Jan Restil,” who extorts money from “Jukt Micronics,” a non-existent company, by promising he will not hack into its computer system. (State Bar Exhibit 3, pp. 116-117.) ° At the time the scandal broke, Applicant was on track to earn approximately $100,000 from his fabricated articles, which was a substantial amount for an associate editor working at TVR. He acknowledged he was making money becauseofthe fabrications. (RT, Vol. VII, p. 58/18-24.) 10 Martin Peretz, the owner of TNR at the time of the fabrications, testified that Applicant found a formula for “moving up” at 7VR and the formula wasto lie. (RT, Vol. I, p. 159/20-23.) Charles Lane, the editor of TNR at the time, concluded that Applicant was a “con man” who had pulled an elaborate hoax on the readers and the people who worked at TNR. (RT, Vol.II, p. 95/6-16.) 3. Once Applicant’s Actions Were Discovered He Attempted To Further Deceive 7NR In Order To Preserve His Reputation. The Review Department majority acknowledged that Applicant’s acts of fraud were compoundedby additional fabrications designed to coverhis tracks: To make matters worse, Glass covered up his inventions with additional lies. Prior to publication, he systematically defrauded fact-checkers and editors by creating reporter’s notes and other documents to support the facts and quotesin his articles. Glass followed up with further deceptions after publication whenhis articles prompted complaintsorletters to the editor. He countered them with more falsely generated reporter’s notes and forced documents. As a consequence,the publications stood behind his work. (Review Department Opinion,p. 4.) Applicant testified when he was about to be terminated, his acts of “covering up became more and more extensive.” (RT, Vol. V, p. 146/16-20.) He lied to deceive his editors, colleagues, and friends in order to prevent them from discovering his lies. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 12/1-18/7.) In virtually all of the fabricated articles, he created fake author’s notes, and other supporting materials to conceal his lies. (RT, Vol. V, pp. 146/11-22, 152/16-21; RT, Vol. TX, pp. 17/15-18/7.) When victims complained that his articles contained lies, Applicant defendedthe articles, told his editors that the articles weretrue and that the subjects complaints were without merit. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 240; State 1] Bar Exhibit 2; RT, Vol. II, pp. 24/5-25/3; RT, Vol. III, p. 32/24-25.) Up to this point, Applicant’s pristine reputation enabled him to perpetuate his lies and deceptions. Even his close friends at TVR were completely fooled by him. (RT, Vol. VII, pp. 9/18-20, 13/2-25, 14/1-15/22, 28/12-23.) Applicant went to great extremes in trying to cover up his fabrications, as evidencedby his efforts to “hinder” Charles Lane, the editor at TVR, from uncovering the truth regarding the article “Hack Heaven.” (RT, Vol. V, p. 176/6-18; State Bar Exhibit 2; State Bar Exhibit 35.) Applicant’s fabrications cameto light in May 1998, when Adam Penenberg, a journalist with Forbes Digital Tool, contacted Lane at TNR and told him he could not verify the claims made by Applicant in “Hack Heaven.” (RT, Vol.II, pp. 26/1- 5, 29/4-20; State Bar Exhibit 35.) Lane then confronted Applicant and asked for supporting documents. Instead of confessing that “Hack Heaven”wasfabricated, Applicant denied any allegations of falsehoods and told Lane that he would go home and get the corroborating documentation. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 29/16-32/9; State Bar Exhibit 35.) Applicant then stayed upall night to fabricate materials in support of his claim that the article was true. (RT, Vol. V, p. 152/15-21; State Bar Exhibit 35.) He set up voice mail boxes and recorded fake messages for the bogus people identified in the article. (RT, Vol. V, p. 152/20-25; State Bar Exhibit 35.) He fabricated author’s notes and a business card for a non-existent person. (RT, Vol. II, p. 34/4-6; RT, Vol. V, pp. 153/5-154/3; State Bar Exhibit 35.) He constructed a sham website for Jukt Micronics, the company referenced in the article. The website wentso far as to include a sham attack against TVR purportedly in response to the “Hack Heaven”article. (RT, Vol. V, p. 154/6-21; State 12 Bar Exhibit 35.) Finally, he created a fake newsletter. (RT, Vol. V, p. 154/23-25; State Bar Exhibit 35.) He even wentso far as to arrange for his brother to pose as a source when Lanecalled to verify the story. (Review Department Opinion, p. 5; RT, Vol. II, pp. 30/16-31/25, 43/17-44/4; RT, Vol. V, p. 172/18-25.) Applicant continued the attempted cover-up when heparticipated in a conference call with Adam Penenberg and Kambiz Foroohar ofForbes Digital Tool and at no time during the conversation did hetell any of the parties that the article was a lie. (RT, Vol. Il, pp. 33/3-34/1.) When Lanebeganto suspect that Applicant was lying, he asked Applicantto take him to the place where the events in “Hack Heaven”occurred. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 34/13- 35/22; State Bar Exhibit 35.) Again, instead of admitting the article and location were fabricated, Applicant directed Lane to a randomly chosen building and continued hislies. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 34/13-35/22; State Bar Exhibit 35.) After Lane questioned the validity of the location, Applicant continued his deceit until he finally broke down and gave a partial confession where herepresented that all the people in “Hack Heaven”were true but that he lied aboutstating that he attended a conference where the fabricated events occurred. This was simply another lie because the entire story was fabricated. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 34/13-37/3; State Bar Exhibit 35.) Applicant repeated this version of events when the parties returned to 7NR and met with TVR Executive Director, Jonathan Cohn. Cohn, whowas lobbied by Applicant, was inclined to be lenient because the offense seemed limited. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 40/12-23, 42/6-24.) Lane then decided to suspend Applicant from 7NR for two years rather than fire 13 him. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 42/25-43/5.) But when Lane subsequently discovered that Applicant’s brother may have posedas a source, he confronted Applicant whoinitially denied this allegation. Applicant later admitted that his brother was involved. Lane then fired Applicant. (RT, Vol. IJ, pp. 43/22-46/9.) 4, Applicant’s Articles Were Frequently Cruel And Mean-Spirited. As acknowledged by the Review Department majority, Applicant’s fabrications were often used to demeanhis subjects,“resulting in stories that were mean-spirited.” (Review Department Opinion, p. 4.) Applicanttestified that he was arrogant at TNR;that he looked down on people; and that he purposefully “wrote nasty, mean-spirited, horrible things about people.” (RT, Vol. V, pp. 133/23-134/4.) He mockedandcriticized people and organizations for actions they did not do and for faults they did not have. For example, in at least twoarticles, he repeated false, damagingracial stereotypes about African Americans. In “Taxis and the Meaning of Work,” he falsely portrayed African American cab drivers as lazy and lecherous. (State Bar Exhibit 2, pp. 4-5; State Bar Exhibit 3, pp. 11-15.) In “Prophets and Losses,” he similarly targeted African Americans, falsely maligning them as ignorant, superstitious, and financially irresponsible. (State Bar Exhibit 4.) “Deliverance,” which was published by TVR in November 1996, included a “cruel fabrication” where Applicant claimed that a customerservice representative from Gateway disgraced him andcalled him a “kike,” an anti-Semitic slur. (RT, Vol.II, p. 14 84/10-16; RT, Vol. V, pp. 141/11-142/1.)° In “Shalom Y’All,” published by TVR in December 1996, Applicant concocted an unflattering stereotype of Southern Baptists. He created a false story about an ignorant, southern red-neck Baptist who chain smoked,ate fried chicken legs by the bucket, and whohad a fanatical determination to convert Jews to the Baptist faith. (State Bar Exhibit 2, p. 5/12-20; State Bar Exhibit 3, pp. 20-21.) “Spring Breakdown”wasa fabricated article written by Applicant that ridiculed members of the Young Republicans. Applicant falsified a story about eightpolitically conservative mid-western college students attending a Conservative Political Action Conference, who engaged in debauchery and attempted to seduce an unattractive young womanand then deliberately humiliate her. (State Bar Exhibit 3, pp. 49-52; RT, Vol.II, pp. 130/10-12, 155/20-22.) In his article, Applicant described the Young Republicans as such: “Thisis the face of young conservatism in 1997: pissed off and pissed; dejected, depressed, drunk and dumb.” (State Bar Exhibit 3, p. 49; RT, Vol. II, pp. 130/10- 12,155/20-22.) Martin Peretz of 7NR described this article as “mean-spirited” and done with a “malicious” intent. (RT, Vol.II, p. 155/5-24.) In 1997 and again in 1998, Rolling Stone published “Don’t You Dare,” where 6 In reallife, Applicant had ordered a personal computer from Gateway and became frustrated when the computer wasnot delivered to him. (RT, Vol. V, p. 141/11-15.) Applicant contacted Gateway and Federal Express, but they were not able to solve the problem. (RT, Vol. V, p. 141/11-15.) The experience was so “horribly frustrating” to Applicant, that he wrote a letter to Gateway falsely accusing it of anti-Semitism. (RT, Vol. V, p. 143/2-5.) He then publicly recounted the lie in “Deliverance.” The article was written even though Applicant had brought the false accusationsto the attention of Ted Waitt, Chairman and CEO of Gateway, whoin turn, wrote Applicanta letter of apology. (State Bar Exhibits 10, 11; RT, Vol. V, p 142/14-17.) 15 Applicant falsely accused D.A.R.E., a drug awareness organization, of, among other things, using threats of violenceto silence its critics. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 2/23-4/2; State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 730-736.)’ In April 1997, Applicant authored anarticle entitled “The Jungle.” Applicant admitted that the lies in the article may have damaged Congressman Bill Thomas’ reputation and caused him pain and humiliation. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 240.) In April 1997, Applicant wrote “A Fine Mess,” about Newt Gingrich and his wife. Applicant acknowledgedthat the lies in this piece were “exceptionally cruel and unfair.” (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 240.) The Review Departmentspecifically referenced an untruearticle Applicant wrote for George in 1998 called “The Vernon Question.” In the article, Vernon Jordan, a trusted memberofPresident Clinton’s innercircle, is described as “crude,” “boorish,” and a man with a reputation for “making sexual advances to female dinner partners.” He is also accused of being “totally unaware of the issues” relating to the various. corporate boards he served on andofbeing loose with corporate ethics and bending guidelines to boost his income. (Review Department Opinion, p. 4.) Among the more egregious fabrications in the article, Applicant completely invented the following sources and quotes: “I always wear a bra around Jordan, one woman admitted. Otherwise hestares at mytits.” “Washington socialites and Democrats, however, have a different nickname for Jordan. They call him ‘Pussy Man.’” (RT, Vol. VIII, pp. 52/7-53/8.) 7 The organization ultimately filed a lawsuit against Applicant, which resulted in a $25,000 settlement. (State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 528-529; RT, Vol.II, p. 84/2-6.) 16 5, Applicant’s Serial Fabrications Caused Extensive Harm. Applicant represented that his fabrications “hurt a lot of people, from the people I lied about, to my editors, to my colleagues, to my readers, and to the community of journalists. It hurt my parents, my brother, and mygirlfriend at the time.” Clearly, amongothers, he betrayed the readers, the people he wrote about, his close friends and family, and the institution ofjournalism. (State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 31, 238-244; RT, Vol. IX, p. 30/14-18.) Richard Bradley,® the former executive editor at George magazineatthe time Applicant was employed at TNR,testified that Applicant’s fabrications “required us (George magazine) to conducta lot of work to try to determine what wastrue and what was not in Stephen’s stories. It was harmful to the reputation of the magazine. In a less tangible way, it was demoralizing to the people who workedat the magazine. It hurt our professional reputations, and it wasa disillusioning experience.” (RT, Vol. VII, p. 21/1- 11.) He testified that Applicant’s articles were damaging to the people he wrote about because he caricatured and mocked them andthese perceptions could not be corrected as easily as a factual mistake. (RT, Vol. VII, p. 31/2-10.) Bradley further believed that Applicant built a level of trust, “then exploited that trust to repeatedly deceive ... in a way that benefitted his professional status.” (RT, Vol. VII, p. 26/2-5.) In a 2003 article, Bradley summeduphis relationship.with Applicant as follows: 8 Bradley was previously knownas Richard Blow before changing his name. (RT, Vol. V, p. 186/13-14; RT, Vol. IX, p. 41/19-20.) Bradley is now the current editor at Worth. 17 To really understand whythe story of Steve Glass still causes such pain, you have to knowthat making up facts was only part ofwhat Glass did to his colleagues. We opened ourselves up to him, and in turn he probed our minds, pinpointing our vulnerabilities, our vanities, our prejudices. He exploited the worst in us and betrayed the best. And then he just vanished — until now. Now he’s back, promotinga tale of fall and redemption.... Andthis is really the main reason why those of us who worked with Steve find it so hard to forgive him. Instead of using his gifts to try to make the world a better place, Steve mined the crudest raw material of our fallible human natures. Andthen he putit all on paper, where it could inflict tangible, long-lasting harm on people who hacn’t done anything wrong, and ran away. (State Bar Exhibit 5.) Charles Lane, who wasthe editor of TNR during the time ofApplicant’s fabrications, testified about the extensive efforts that had to be madeto identify all of the fabrications, including damage assessment, the involvement of TNR’s attorneys, hiring investigators, and spending weeks conducting an exhaustive review ofall ofApplicant’s articles for the magazine. (RT, Vol.II, pp. 46/12-47/9, 49/24-50/3, 51/12-18, 71/15-23.) TNRincurredlegal expenses and was exposedto a real reputational risk. There wasalso an “intangible harm” suffered by people in the offices of TNR — “People who had been his close friends, and really trusted him, and taken him under their wing, in manycases, wereterribly disappointed and disillusioned, to the point where I think most of them have not spoken with him since then.” (RT, Vol. II, pp. 95/17-96/18.) Lanetestified that Applicant’s fabrications were “a kind of a con” and an “elaborate hoax that he was pulling not only on our readers, but on all the other people who worked at The New Republic...” (RT, Vol. Il, p. 95/4-16.) Rolling Stone, George, and Policy Review did their own investigations andall | 18 were compelled to publish notes explaining their investigation and stating why they determinedthe articles to be false. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 515.) D.A.R.E.filed a lawsuit against Applicant and Rolling Stone. Applicant settled the lawsuit against him for $25,000 and was required to submit a declaration outlining the fabricated portions ofthe article. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 4/4-19; State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 49, 728-737.) Applicant went so far as to involve his own brother in his schemeoffabrications by having him pose as “George Sims,” a representative ofa fictitious company, in an effort to deceive Charles Lane. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 61/5-25, 65/2-24.) 6. Applicant’s MisconductIs So Significant, It Is Permanently Memorialized In A National Museum Exhibit Showcasing Journalistic Fraud. Applicant’s conduct clearly tarnished the entire journalism profession. As noted by the Review Department, Applicant’s “breaches ofjournalistic standards were well reported in the news media, and he becamean infamous example of an ethical lapse in the field ofjournalism. His deception even landed him an ignominious place in the ‘Newseum,’ a museum dedicated to the history of news and journalism located in Washington, D. C.” (State Bar Exhibit 8; Review Department Opinion,p. 8.) Applicant is featured in a permanent exhibit there named “Press Scandals Frode Public’s Trust.” (State Bar Exhibit 8, p. 12.) The display includes a copy of the fax Applicant created to deceive the fact- checkers at TVR concerning the article “Hack Heaven.” (State Bar Exhibit 8, pp. 14-15; RT,Vol. If, pp. 106/14-108/7.) Also includedis a sign that reads in part: “In the early 19 1970’s, television newsman Walter Cronkite was called ‘the most trusted man in America.’ But a string of scandals in the latter part of the 20th century and early in the 21st — plagiarisms, fabrication and other ethical lapses — tookits toll. In a 2005poll, just 28 percent ofAmericans said they had ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in newspaperandtelevision news.” (State Bar Exhibit 8, p. 12.) 7. Applicant Failed To Re-Establish Himself In The Journalism Community. Even though Applicant endeavored to become a journalist, he has never resumed that career and it appears that it would take an extraordinary effort to do so, given his reputation as a knownfabricator. Applicant testified before the New York Barthat: “What I did was such a severe breach ofjournalism rules that I will never be welcomed within journalism and rightly so.” (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 535/11-13.) Charles Lanetestified that Applicant’s fabrications are: “very, very famous” because his misconduct“...is one of the instances in which the greatest number of fabricated stories madeit into print....” (RT, Vol. I, p. 109/6-10.) Lane furthertestified that Applicant: [H]as shown himself to be flagrantly incapable ofproducing honest journalism or accurate journalism, and, furthermore, it would beterribly embarrassing,I believe, to any publication that I work for to hire Mr. Glass to work as a journalist, given his notoriety...his record is as having systematically deceived the last publication that he workedfor, and all of its readers, having subsequently not come completely clean with us, with them...We talked earlier it was one of the most substantial cases of journalistic fraud in history. I mean, somebody with that on his resume, in my judgment, cannotbe hired as a journalist. (RT, Vol. II, p. 119/2-17.) Similarly, Richard Bradley testified that he would never hire Applicant as a 20 journalist because “[o]n a personallevel, I wouldn’t trust Stephen. On professional level, Stephen’s byline, at this point, comes with so much baggagethat any article with his name on it would probably not be considered credible....” (RT, Vol. VIII, p. 32/7- 15.) Even Applicant’s own character witness, Martin Peretz, could not state with unconditional affirmation that he would hire Applicant as a journalist. (RT, Vol.II,p. 137/8-15.) B. Applicant’s Conduct Since He Was Exposed Has Not Been Exemplary When Balanced Against The Magnitude Of His Acts Of Deceit. 1. A Summary Of Applicant’s Actions Since His Termination At TNR. The severity and scope of Applicant’s fraudulent acts ofjournalistic fabrication are fully set forth in the record. Subsequent to his conduct being discovered in 1998, Applicant undertook the following endeavors, a majority of which appear to support his ownself-interests: - When his conduct wasfirst called into question in 1998, Applicant’s immediate response was to attempt to cover up the concermsby engaging in further deception in order to preserve his career and reputation. (See e.g., RT, Vol. J, pp. 26/1-5, 29/4-20; RT, Vol. V, p. 176/6-18; State Bar Exhibit 2; State Bar Exhibit 35.) - Applicant, through his attorneys, placed the burden on TNR to come up with a list of documents that TNR believed contained fabricated information and then Applicant would only stipulate to whether 7NR’s findings were correct or incorrect. He essentially left TVR on its own1 to discover the etrors. (RT, Vol.II, p. 77/2-12.) - Applicant began therapy in 1998. As of 2005, Applicant wasstill in the process ofunderstanding and accepting responsibility for, and dealing with, his past misconduct. (Review Department Opinion, p. 9; Review Department Dissenting Opinion, p. 19; RT, Vol. VIII, p. 148/9-22.) 21 Applicant continued his law school program at Georgetown, which he began in 1997, and graduated in 2000. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 33/21-34/14.) Applicant held various law related jobs between 1998 and 2000. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 72/3-20) In 2001, Applicant entered into an agreement with Simon & Schusterto publish a novel based on his fraudulent conduct, ultimately receiving a $175,000 advance and an additional $15,000 in subsidiary rights. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 85/12-86/3.) In 2003, Applicant’s novel was published and he appeared on “60 Minutes” to promote and publicize the novel. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 86/12-21.) Applicant applied to the New York Bar in 2002. He withdrew his application in 2004 when he became aware that the New York Bar was going to deny him admission based on moral character grounds. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 7/26-27.) Applicant wrote over 100 apology letters, with a vast majority of those letters being written in 2002-2004 (see RT, Vol. VIII, p. 24/11-19), four to six years after he had been exposed as a fraud, and during the pendency of his New York Bar application. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 7/26-27.) In or around 2003, Applicant madea total of three volunteer speaking appearances: (1) Columbia University’s Journalism School; (2) George Washington University; and (3) CORO,an organization thattrains high school kids in civic responsibilities. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 203/9-24.) In or around 2003 and 2004, Applicant engaged in limited community service, volunteering in bingo at a senior center in New York one day a week for over a year. (Review Department Opinion, pp. 11-12; State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 544; RT, Vol. IX, pp. 204/13-205/25.) In 2004, Applicant moved to California. He began working as a law clerk at a California law firm. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 6.) He volunteered for a charitable food delivery service, but could not continue due to work demands. (Review Department Opinion, pp. 11-12; RT, Vol. IX,pp. 204/13-205/25.) Applicant took and passed the California Bar Examination, and in 2007 he submitted his Moral Character Application. (Review Department Opinion, 22 p. 3.) What’s clearly lacking from this record was duly noted in a 2003 article written by Richard Bradley, one ofthe editors from George who was deceived by Applicant: What wouldit take for me to forgive Steve Glass? Nothingso saintly, actually. He’ll probably need to do morethan just write me a letter. He could start by actually apologizing to everyone who wasever hurt by what he wrote and what he did — individually. In person, if possible. Maybe he could pay back the moneyhe accepted from magazines for the stories he made up. By defrauding his employers, Glass essentially stole that money —and with his book, he’s compoundingthe original theft. He could donate some cash to the Columbia School of Journalism for a course or a lecture series on journalistic ethics. To say there is no point in even trying seems terribly convenient. (State Bar Exhibit 5, p. 6.) 2. Applicant Failed To Publicly Identify All OfThe Fabricated Articles He Authored At JVR And ThoseArticles Continue To Remain In The Public Domain. Applicant failed to formally discloseto the editors of TNRat least eight fabricated articles, and to this day, those fabricated articles remain in the public domain. Consequently, in 1998, TNR reported to the public that only 27 articles authored by Applicant were fabricated. (RT, Vol.II, pp. 89/11-90/4.) In the days immediately after Applicant was fired from 7NR, Charles Lane andhis staff spent weeks going throughall ofApplicant’s articles in an effort to determine whetherthose articles contained lies. (RT, Vol. II, p. 71/15-23.) Although Applicant’s assistance was needed, Applicant insisted 7VR communicate only with Applicant’s attorney. TNR wasforced to compile list of articles, which it believed contained . fabrications, and then presentthe list to Applicant’s attorney. Applicant would, in turn, 23 review the list and say “yes” or “no” as to whetheran article included false information. (RT, Vol. I, pp. 76/20-77/25, 82/2-25.) Applicant did not provide any information to TNR that was not included on thelist or otherwise assist TNR to identify the specific fabrications. (RT, Vol. II, p. 115/2-14.) Ifan article was not on the list, TVR was onits own. (RT, Vol. II, p. 77/8-9.) On June 1, 1998, ZNR published retraction note, identifying fourarticles it believed were fabricated. On June 29, 1998,it published a second note identifying 23 additional articles. (State Bar Exhibit 1, Subsection 1, pp. 84-85.) The retractions were, however, incomplete. Applicant failed to identify a total of eight other fabricatedarticles. Fourofthose articles were on the list he reviewed but were not identified by Applicant as containing fabrications. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 82/11-83/5, 92/21-93/25; State Bar Exhibit 2.) Applicant was aware ofthe retraction notes TNR published and had seen them at times. Nonetheless, he testified that he had not reviewed them carefully until these proceedings, and, had he doneso, he would have known they were incomplete. (RT, Vol. VII,pp. 113/22-114/4, 118/19-119/3.) Susan Bloch, Applicant’s own character witness,testified that: “I would be troubled if there were information that Steve knew and should have disclosed, and didn’t. That would trouble mea lot.” (RT, Vol. I, pp. 130/21-131/4.) Lane was shocked whenhelearnedfor the first time during the course of these proceedings that Applicant neverdisclosed all of his fabrications to TVR. What shocked him the most wasthat the “Deliverance”article — and statement that Applicant had been called a “kike” by a Gateway customerservice representative — had not previously been 24 identified as fabricated. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 91/11-94/10.) 3. Applicant Failed To Publicly Identify His Fabrications In Articles Published By George Magazine And One Article Published ByHarper’s Magazine. Richard Bradley, the then-editor of George, spoke with Applicant regarding the three articles he had authored for George andtold him it would be “enormously helpful” if Applicant could help him determine what information was false. Applicant told Bradley that he was not psychologically capable at that time of helping. (RT, Vol. VII, pp. 11/19-12/9.) Applicant never contacted Bradley at a future time to identify the fabrications in any of the articles. (RT, Vol. VIII, p. 19/5-8.) George subsequently published a retraction note identifying that Applicant authored the article “The Vernon Question.” The magazine could only state that the article was generally fabricated because it could not identify the specific falsehoods. As with the 7NR notes, Applicant only carefully read the George note for the first time in preparation for the State Bar of California moral character proceedings. (RT, Vol. VII, pp. 131/12-132/18.) - Similarly, Harper ’s sought Applicant’s assistance in identifying fabrications in the article “Prophets and Losses,” as it wanted to disclose any fabrications to its readers. (Harrison Stipulation, pp. 1/25-2/4.) Applicant’s attorney told Colin Harrison, Harper’s editor, that Applicant wasin a difficult situation and under great pressure. (Harrison Stipulation, p. 2/8-9.) Neither Applicant nor Applicant’s attorney ever contacted Harrison and Harper’s wasneverable to identify the article as fabricated. (Harrison Stipulation, p. 2/11-17.) The falsehoods containedin the article — damagingracial stereotypes ofAfrican Americans as ignorant, superstitious, and financially irresponsible 25 — remain in the public domain today. Richard Bradleytestified that “...if stereotypes or portrayals were damaging, and you didn’t have accessto the truth of the processofthe writing and editing ofthearticles, those stereotypes might linger.” (RT, Vol. VIII, pp. 31/16-32/2.) Asconceded by the Review Department, Applicant’s initial efforts to correct the record were inadequateat best, and to date, Applicant hasstill not set the record straight with all of the magazines. (Review Department Opinion, p. 6.) Applicant proffered the explanation that he was emotionally not up to the task at the time. (Review Department Opinion, p. 6.) However, in the period immediately following the scandal he was able to complete law school at Georgetown,pass the New York Bar Examination, workin various law clerk positions, sign a contract with Simon & Schuster to author a novel that resulted in a six-figure advance, write the novel, and submit it for publication. In any event, his excuse of acute mental anguish in 1998 does not excuse him from failing to follow through with the magazinesat a later date. (Review Department Opinion,p. 6.) 4. Applicant Benefitted Monetarily From His Acts OfDeception And Made No Effort To Voluntarily Disgorge Those Profits. In 2001, Applicant entered into an agreement with Simon & Schuster to publish a novel based on his fraudulent conduct, receiving a $175,000 advance and entitlement to a share of the royalties and a percentage of the secondary rights to his work.” (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 83/6-11, 85/19-25.) The novel, The Fabulist, was published in 2003 and wasinspired by Applicant’s lies and acts of deceit as a journalist. 9 Including royalties, Applicant received a total of $190,000 less approximately 25% in agent’s fees. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 83/6-11, 85/19-25.) 26 No evidence was presented that Applicant ever donated any of the moneyto a program dedicated to journalistic ethics or donated a substantial portion of that money to any charitable cause. To the contrary, he used the money for his own personal and financial gain. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 86/5-87/9.) Richard Bradley testified that it would have been important for Applicant to consider reimbursing George for the articles he was paid to write: ... [thought that that deception that Stephen practiced was a breach of contract, and I thought that addressing the acceptance of monies for fraudulent work was wrong, and so I thought that — it was my opinion that part of Stephen’s process of addressing what had happened might involve returning those monies or donating them to some worthy cause. (RT, Vol. VIU, pp. 40/11-41/10.) Charles Lanetestified that at no time did Applicant offer to pay the legal expenses incurred by TNRorreturn the salary he received. (RT, Vol. p. 96/19-25.)'° 5. The Timing Of Applicant’s Apology Letters Coincide With His Pending New York Bar Application And The Publication OfHis Novel. A majority ofthe Review Department found in support ofApplicant’s rehabilitation that in 2001 and continuing through 2004, Applicant began apologizing privately by writing over 100 apologyletters to those he had harmed. (Review Department Opinion, p. 7.) A vast majority of the apology letters were written between 10 Applicanttestified that in or about 2007 or 2008, when he “reconnected” with Martin Peretz at an informal event, he offered to return his prior salary. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 41/1-9.) Notably, Applicant was making a considerable amount of moneyat time, earning $154,000 a year working as a law clerk at a California Law Firm. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 162/7-8.) Also, coincidentally enough, his California Bar application was pending. Similar offers, however, were not extended to the other magazines. (RT, Vol. IX, pp. 41/4-43/7.) 7 27 2002-2004, four to six years after he was terminated from 7NR,and just on the eve of the release of his novel and while the State Bar ofNew York was evaluating his moral character application. (RT, Vol. VII, p. 47/8-20; RT, Vol. IV, pp. 112/16-113/1.) In May 2003, Applicant’s girlfriend contacted Richard Bradley to see if Bradley would meet with Applicant. At their meeting, Applicant apologized, but Bradley found the apology unconvincing and the conversation frustrating. (RT, Vol. VIII, p. 24/4-6.) He felt Applicant’s explanation for his conduct was superficial and that the apology was motivated byself-interest: ... [T]he timing of the apology struck measself-interested. It came just a short time, days or a weekorso, before the publication of Stephen’s novel, The Fabulist, and I was concernedthat this apology, coming when :t did, could be considered a kind of pre-emptive strike on Stephen’s part, that he wastrying to soften or negate potential criticism from someofthe editors with whom hehad most closely worked, and who had been most affected by his earlier fabrications... (RT, Vol. VUI, p. 24/11-19.) 6. Applicant’s Misconduct Prevented His Admission To The New-York Bar And He Withdrew His New York Bar Application After Notice OfAn Impending Unfavorable Moral Character Determination. Applicant took and passed the New York Bar Examination in'2000. In July 2002, he applied for admission to the State Bar ofNew York. In May 2004, a subcommittee of the New York Bar’s Office of the Committee on Character and Fitness commenced a hearing into Applicant’s moral character. After the hearing concluded, Applicant became aware that the Committee intended to make an unfavorable moral character determination. On September 22, 2004, Applicant senta letter to the Committee requesting that he be permitted to withdraw his application. On September30, 2004, the 28 Committee confirmed that his application would be put on hold. Applicant did not reapply for admission to the New York Bar and instead moved to California and applied for admission to the California Bar. (State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 726-727.) 7. Applicant Was Less Than Forthright On His New York Bar Application. Applicant represented to the New York Barthat: “I worked with all three magazines and other publications where I had written freelance articles to identify which facts were true and which werefalsein all of my stories, so that they could publish clarifications for their readers.” (RT, Vol. II, pp. 114/2-115/14.) Lane, however, testified that the statement wasnottrue: Well, he didn’t work with us. The effort we went through, over the course of nearly a month, to investigate all those stories would have been unnecessary if he had workedwith us, and simply come forward andlaid bare everything that was untruein his stories. Instead, he sought legal counsel and, in effect, clammed up. AsI believe I testified earlier, when I read the statement that he’s laid out in this proceeding, I discovered that, even to this day, he has not — or had not — come clean about everything. So I’m little amazed to see that he was representing to somebody that he worked with The New Republic to separate fact from fiction in his articles. That was definitely not my experience. (RT, Vol. II, pp. 114/2-115/14.) t Applicant only recently conceded during these proceedings, that it was inaccurate to say on his New York Barapplication that he worked with the magazines (TNR, George, and Harper’s) to identify what was true and what wasfalse in the articles published. Applicanttestified that he should have stated that he only “offered” to work with the magazines. (RT, Vol. VI, p. 32/12-25; RT, VII, pp. 100/20-101/21; RT, VII, pp. 29 133/10-135/1.) And by “offered” to work, he meant through counsel. (RT, Vol. VI, p. 32/12-25.) However, Applicant could not confirm that such an offer was actually extended, and could only testify that he believed his attorney had madethe offer. (RT, Vol. VI, pp. 133/10-135/1.) In an October 22, 2003 letter to the Committee on Character and Fitness for the New York Bar, Applicant represented that he went throughall ofhis articles to identify those in which potentially harmful, false statements were made about actual persons and actual organizations. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 236.) Absent from the list was the article “Deliverance,” a particularly maliciousarticle that attributed anti-semitic remarks to Gateway, an actual organization, and garnered an apology from the company CEO. Applicant admitted that his article could have harmed the companybut he did not think to includeit in his response to the New York Bar. (RT, Vol. VII, pp. 135/11-137/14.) VI. ARGUMENT A. In Light Of The Uncontroverted Evidence Of Applicant’sMassive-Fraud, Applicant Failed To Establish The High Level Of Rehabilitation Necessary To Overcome His Prior Misconduct, Consistent With This Court’s Mandates In In Re Menna And In Re Gossage. The amountofrehabilitative evidence required to justify admission varies according to the seriousness of the misconductat issue. (in re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 987.) An applicant’s required showing of rehabilitation increases with the severity and scope of the underlying conduct. (an re Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1096 [only “compelling showing of reform”will suffice in light of the egregiousness ofthe misconduct].) Where, as here, the misconduct is extremely egregious, Applicant must 30 demonstrate exemplary conduct over a sustained period of time and make a compelling showing of reform. | Applicant apparently does not understand this concept, as he argued before the State Bar Court that his past misconductis irrelevant to his claim ofpresent good moral character. (Applicant’s Responsive Brief on Review,p. 20.)'! This argumentis incorrect and inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions cited above emphasizing that an applicant’s past behavioris crucial in evaluating evidence offered to prove moral reform. Applicant characterizes his past acts as “deficient” or “verydeficient.” (Applicant’s Responsive Brief on Review, pp. 20-21.) This is a gross understatement. Applicant is by all accounts the perpetrator of one of the greatest journalistic frauds in history. Applicant used the powerofhis pen to promote racial stereotypes and assassinate the reputations of well-known and well-respected public figures and companies; his lies penetrated deeply and impacted the magazines he workedfor, his editors, colleagues, family, and friends. But the carnage didn’t end there — it spilled over and tainted the entire journalism community. Readers who believed‘in thetruthfulness of Applicant’s articles lost faith in the entire news media. Given this back drop, Applicant has a heavy burden to prove rehabilitation through exemplary conduct over a sustained and meaningful period of time. Applicant fell short in his endeavor however, and failed to demonstrate this necessary requirement for certification to admission to practice law in California. 4 Specifically Applicant states: “[I]t is important to stress that the focusofthis proceeding is on Mr. Glass’s present moral character, not his moral character of 12 years ago, when he wasajournalist.” (Applicant’s Responsive Brief on Review,p. 20/20-22.) 31 1. No Sustained Period of Time to Demonstrate Reform. For purposes of evaluating the appropriate period of rehabilitation, the relevant time frame runs from the last act of misconductto the time whenthe applicant sought a moral character determination. (Jn re Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1099.) This is because good conductis generally expected from someone who hasapplied for admission to practice law, and whose character is under scrutiny by the State Bar. (/bid.) Here, assuming Applicant’s last act of misconduct was in 2003 (when he made misrepresentations on his New York Barapplication), only four years had elapsed before he applied for moral character in California in 2007.” In light of the gravity and totality of his bad acts, this time period is insufficient. (See e.g., Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1061,1071-1072 [269 Cal.Rptr. 749, 791 P.2d 319][emphasizing a nine-and-a-half year period that elapsed since applicant wrongfully evaded payment of a civil judgment]; Martin B. v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1983) 33 Cal.3d 717, 726 [190 Cal.Rptr. 610, 661 P.2d 160] [highlighting passage of nine-year unblemished record after applicant was accused of rape as a Marine]; Hall v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1979) 25 Cal.3d 730, 742[159 Cal.Rptr. 848, 602 P.2d 768] [stressing importance of six-year period in which no complaints were lodged against applicant's employment businessafter his business license was temporarily suspended by an administrative agency]; In re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 989 [holding that applicant’s five and one-half years of unsupervised good 2 Arguably, Applicant should not get rehabilitation credit during the period oftime he was underscrutiny by the New York Bar (July 2002-September 2004). (State Bar Exhibit 1, pp. 726-727.) Using this calculation Applicant would only have approximately three years of reform beforefiling his moral character application in California in 2007. 32 conduct not a sufficient period of time to demonstrate genuine reform considering prior misconduct].) 2. No Compelling Showing ofExemplary Conduct. Further, the.Committee argues that Applicant not only failed to demonstrate rehabilitation over a sustained period of time, but he also failed to demonstrate a compelling showing of exemplary conduct. While his conduct may have been commendable (he did work for a law firm, he did do limited community service, and he did seek medical help and therapy for his issues), it does not rise to the level of exemplary, and in many circumstancesit arguably falls below acceptable standards. (See Seide v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1989) 49 Cal.3d 933, 941[264 Cal.Rptr. 361, 782 P.2d 602] [being a model prisoner, getting married, or holding a steady job fails to indicate the type of rehabilitation normally expected in a case whereserious or criminal behavior is at issue, and applicant’s post-incarceration activities constituted only “whatis ordinarily expected as a memberofsociety”’].) a. Applicant Did Not Disgorge the Profits from His Course of Serial Fraud. Applicant profited through his wrongdoing and “profited handsomely” when he received approximately $190,000 for writing a novel abouthis fraudulent conduct. While certainly not illegal, keeping the money for personal gain appears inconsistent with the notion of moral rehabilitation. Applicant could have, and the Committee believes should have,used the moneyto correct his wrongs, to pay back the victims of his lies, orto fund ethics programs benefiting the journalism profession which he damagedso greatly. It 33 wasn’t until roughly 2007 or 2008, almost ten years after the scandal broke, that Applicant claims he offered to return money to Martin Peretz when heran into him at an informal event. (RT, Vol. IX, p. 41/1-9.) Applicant never made a formal offer to TVR and never offered to make amendsto the other magazines, their editors, or employees. b. Applicant Omitted Information and Made Misrepresentations on His 2003 New York Bar Application and Declaration. The Review Department conceded that Applicant did not disclose to the New York Bar the full numberofarticles he fabricated. The Review Departmentalso found that Applicant mischaracterized the degree to which he cooperated with the magazines to indentify the fabricated materials. (Review Department Opinion,p. 8.) i. Applicant failed to include a complete list of his fabricated works. Applicant filed an incomplete and inaccurate application with the New York Bar. In 2003, Applicant submitted a declaration to the New York State Bar as part of the admissions processidentifying 23 fabricated articles that he believed had caused harmed to real persons andreal organizations. (State Bar Exhibit 1, p. 236.) This number was woefully less than the number of fraudulent articles he actually authored. He later testified at the New York moral character hearing that he had fabricated between 30 and 40 articles. He explained that he identified only 23 articles because the remainingarticles were about fictitious individuals and entities that could not have been harmedby his falsehoods. (Review Department Opinion, p. 8.) However, even this statement to the New York Bar was misleading as Applicant knowingly did not disclose the existence of the article “Deliverance,” which contained false statements about an actual company. 34 (RT, Vol. VII, pp. 135/11-137/14.) There is no finding by the Review Departmentthat the omissions were the product of an innocent mistake. At a time when he was underscrutiny by the New York Bar, Applicant should have been “scrupulously honest” and more than forthcoming with information regarding the extent of his misconduct. (See Review Department Dissenting Opinion,p. 18.) In an abundanceofcaution, he should have opted for full disclosure ofall fabricated articles. However, Applicant again exhibited his self-serving ways and chose to disclose the existence of roughly 20 articles, when in fact the number wascloser to 40. As duly noted by the dissenting judge, “[H]e presented an inaccurate application because it benefitted him — the same behaviorashis earlier misconduct.” (Review Department Dissenting Opinion, p. 18.) Applicant’s failure to provide this informationis clearly not indicative of good moral character becoming of an attorney in this state. As recognized by this Court: “Whether it caused by intentional concealment, reckless disregard for the truth, or an unreasonable refusal to perceive the need for disclosure, such an omission is itself strong evidence that the applicant lacks the ‘integrity’ and/or ‘intellectual discernment’ required to be an attorney.” (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1102.) ii. Applicant mischaracterized the assistance he gave to the magazines after the scandal broke. As a further example of Applicant’s persistent refusal or inability to perceive the need for candid disclosure, in 2010, Applicant admitted for the first time that he did not work with the magazines (7NR, George, and Harper’s) to identify what was true and 35 what wasfalse in the articles published. Applicant testified before the State Bar Court that his statements to the New York Bar were untrue and that he should havestated that he only “offered” to work with the magazines. (RT, Vol. VI, p. 32/12-25; RT, VII, pp. 100/20-101/21; RT, VII, pp. 133/10-135/1.) c. Applicant’s Apologies in 2003 Appeared Insincere and Self-Serving. The Review Department gave considerable weight to the fact that Applicant wrote over 100 apology letters, ostensibly seeking to make amends. (Review Department Opinion, p. 14.) The Review Department found his attempts to be genuine, focusing on the fact that that the letters were personalized and not simply computer generated form- letters. (Review Department Opinion, p. 7.) The Review Department missed the point however. The timing of the letters was suspect. The majority of the letters were sent between 2002 and 2004, when Applicant was under consideration for admission to the State Bar ofNew York. (Review Department Opinion, p. 7.) Also during this time, Applicant’s novel The Fabulist was being published. More importantly, Applicant waited several years after the misconduct occurred to write these letters. One trying to demonstrate exemplary conduct arguably would have rendered his apologies in a timelier manner. To many, this delayed remorse seemed distant and contrived. One witness testified that he felt the timing of the apology struck him as “self-interested” as it came just a shortly before the publication of his novel. (RT, Vol. VIII, p. 24/11-19). In the attorney discipline context, this Court has held that: “[E]xpressing remorse for one's misconduct is an elementary moral precept which, standing alone, deserves no special consideration in determining the appropriate discipline.” (Hipolito v. State Bar 36 (1989) 48 Cal.3d 621, 627, fn. 2 [257 Cal.Rptr. 331, 770 P.2d 743].) To be given credit for mitigation, objective steps must be taken designed to “timely atone” for any consequences of the member’s misconduct. (Standards of Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, std. 1.2 (e)(vii).) This standard is equally applicable in a moral character proceeding. (See Jn re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 990-991 [remorse alone does not demonstrate rehabilitation; “a truer indication of rehabilitation will be presented if petitioner can demonstrate by his sustained conduct over an extended period oftime that he is ... fit to practice law....”].) d. Applicant’s Appearance on “60 Minutes” Also AppearsSelf- Serving. Applicant testified that in 2003 he decided to make an appearance on the television news-show “60 Minutes” because:“I had wanted an opportunity to talk somewhatpublicly, or talk publicly about what I had done, and I wanted to makethat clear that I had lied, and make it known in a very public way, since what I had done was very public...” (RT, Vol. IV, p. 83/3-6.) The Review Department majority similarly noted that: “Applicant appeared on “60 Minutes” in 2003 to publicly discuss his fabrications. He recountedhis history as a journalist and detailed his very public outing as a fraud. He admitted his conduct was wrong and acknowledgedthat he hurt other people.” (Review Department Opinion, p. 7.) Yet again, the Review Departmentfailed to appreciate the suspect timing of this event. Given Applicant’s notoriety at the time and the media attention the scandal brought, if he truly wanted to publicly acknowledge his wrongdoings,this interview 37 appearance could havetaken place in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 — closer in proximity to the actual misconduct. However, the interview took place in 2003, on the eve of the release of Applicant’s novel The Fabulist and at the behest ofApplicant’s publisher Simon & Schuster.’ (RT, Vol. VI, pp. 83/21-25-84/1-16.) Once more, Applicant’s efforts appear to be moreself-serving in nature, than a matter of rehabilitation and model conduct. e. Applicant’s Own Therapist Admitted He WasStill in the Process of Understanding and AcceptingHis Past Misconduct. The Review Department gave substantial weight to Applicant’s dedication to therapy as evidenceof rehabilitation, noting that he began seeing a therapist shortly after his departure from TNR in 1998 and has continued in therapy since. (Review Department Opinion, pp. 9-11.) Applicant testified that his therapy has been an essential part ofhis recovery plan, helping him to curb his desires to lie and to “gain[ ] insightinto his feelings of gross inadequacy and a self-destructive need for approval as a result of extreme parental pressures to excel.” (Review Department Opinion,pp. 9-10.) In In re Mennathis Court found that while therapeutic efforts are laudable, they are somewhat mitigated by the personal benefit an applicant receives in maintaining his 8 Applicanttestified that he wrote The Fabulist as a “therapeutic effort to come to understand some of the emotionaltruth about what [he] has done...” (RT, Vol., IX,pp. 92/22-93/1.) Healso testified that he wrote The Fabulist as a “cautionary tale that would be helpful to journalism students...” (RT, Vol. IX, p. 97/1-6.) However, The Fabulistis a fictional story, where Applicant plays the protagonist. If Applicant’s novel wastruly a cathartic effort and he genuinely wanted totell the truth and relay to journalist students the importance of ethics, Applicant could have written a real-life account of events that actually transpired. Instead, his fictionalized version, gave him the opportunity to | continue to concoct new stories and invent new tales — simply perpetuating his talent for creating fact out offiction. 38 own recovery. (Un re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th p. 990 [applicant’s participation in Gamblers Anonymous commendable, but without giving back to larger community,it alone did not establish rehabilitation].) The Review Departmentfailed to diminish the amount of weight given to Applicant’s therapy based on the fact that it resulted in minimal community outreach, and primarily aided in Applicant’s own recovery efforts. Moreover, the record clearly indicates that despite his extensive therapy, Applicant continued to engage in less than exemplary conduct. In 2003 he made multiple misrepresentations to the New York Bar. Further, it wasn’t until 2009, during the course of these California moral character proceedings that Applicant finally disclosed the full list of all of his fabricated articles. And even to date, he hasstill never formally contacted most of the magazinesto set the record straight with them as to the complete list of fabrications. What is abundantly apparent is that Applicant’s recovery processis still on-going. Evenas late as 2005, his own therapist acknowledged that Applicant was“still in the process ofunderstanding and accepting his past misconduct.” (Review Department Dissenting Opinion, pp. 18-19.) Applicant applied for admission to the State Bar of California just two years later in 2007. If the period of rehabilitation is measured from that date, at is should be, then at this juncture, Applicant simply has not shownrehabilitative efforts of an exemplary nature over a sustained period of time. f. Character References Are Not Enough. “Character testimony, howeverlaudatory, does not alone establish the requisite 39 good moral character” necessary for admission to practice law in California. (Seidev. Committee ofBar Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 939.) The State Bar Court gave great weight to Applicant’s character witnesses, finding them to be “outstanding.” (Review Department Opinion, p. 12.) In the same breath, the Court gavelittle weight to the Committee’s witnesses, including Applicant’s former editors, finding that they had had very little contact with Applicant over the past ten years. (Review Department Opinion, p. 13.) The State Bar Court’s assessment ofweight in this regard is simply wrong. The Committee’s witnesses were victims of Applicant’s lies and frauds; individuals who could intimately evaluate the long-lasting impact ofApplicant’s bad behavior. Charles Lanetestified about Applicant’s present reputation for dishonesty in journalism, his continuing failure to publicly disclose eight of the fabricated articles published by 7NR,the financial and reputational harm caused to TNR, and Applicant’s failure to make amendsfor that harm. Richard Bradley testified about Applicant’s present reputation for dishonesty in journalism, his continuing failure to publicly disclose any ofthe articles he fabricated for George, his insincere apology,his failure to correct the harm likely caused bythe false racial stereotypesin his articles, and his failure to either make restitution of the monies he waspaid by George, or to donate that moneyto charity. Andfinally Joseph Landautestified about Applicant’s lies at TVR and the inadequate apologyletter he received from Applicant. These witnesses and their testimonyare entitled to greater weight. 40 Moreover, while some weight is rightly accorded to Applicant’s witnesses, the State Bar Court overlooked the fact that none ofApplicant’s character witnesses knew the full nature and extent of his lies and the harm he caused to his victims. Nor did they know in detail whether Applicant had made amendsto the people and organizations he harmed. Notably, no one was awareofthe full list of fabricated articles since Applicant only disclosed it for the first time during these proceedings. Curiously, Applicant did not call his parents or his brotherto testify as to his reformed nature. g. Applicant Failed to Make Amendsto the Journalism Community, to which He Brought Shame and Dishonor. Althoughthere is no licensing requirement in journalism, by all accounts, and even by his own admission, Applicant was essentially “disbarred” from that profession. Since his abrupt departure, Applicant hasnot tried to seek redemption and make amends by giving back to the community he hurt. The comparison to Jn re Mennais striking. In In re Menna, a New Jersey attorney was permanently disbarred in that state based on numerousacts of serious and criminal misconduct. (In re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 980.) The attorney then sought admissionto practice law in California. In denying his petition, this Court found that his five-and-a-half years of unsupervised good conduct, therapeutic efforts at curbing his addictions, genuine remorse, and community service wereinsufficient to overcomehis prior bad acts: His previous misconduct wassufficiently egregiousto warrantthe ultimate sanction ofpermanent disbarment in New Jersey. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to require a truly compelling demonstration of moral rehabilitation as a condition of his admission to the bar of [California], i.e., 41 ‘overwhelming[] proof ofreform ... which we could with confidence lay before the world in justification of a judgment again installing him in the profession ...” (Citation.) The record evidence does notsatisfy this standard. (In re Menna at p. 989.) This Court further emphasizedthat: “[I]n our view ... the record [does not] show applicant has engaged in truly exemplary conduct in the sense of returning something to the community he betrayed.” (Wn re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 990.) “[I]f applicant is committed to assisting those who ‘needhelp in the legal system’ opportunities are available such as providing pro bono or volunteer work as well as other non-legal means of contributing as a “productive memberofsociety.’” (dn re Mennaat p. 991.) Here, if Applicant were truly dedicated to giving back to the journalism community, he could have contributed to charitable causes or made repeated and consistent appearancesto talk about journalistic ethics and professionalresponsibilities; howeverhis mere showingofthree appearancessince 1998is far from exemplary. Applicant has not returned anything to the profession he betrayed. B. Given The Serious Nature Of Applicant’s Misconduct, The State Bar Court Erred In Resolving All Reasonable Doubts About Applicant’s Rehabilitation In His Favor. The Review Department resolved all reasonable doubts about Applicant’s rehabilitation in his favor and gave him the benefit of any conflicting but equally reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence. (Review Department Opinion,p. 15.) The Review Department further found that the Committee had been “loath to apply these inferences in analyzing Glass’s evidence of rehabilitation” because the Committee 42 “alloweditself to be carried away bythe distant tide of [Glass’s] earlier misconduct. (Citation).” (Review Department Opinion,p. 15.) Although historically in moral character proceedingsall reasonable doubts have been resolved in an applicant’s favor, in Jn re Mennathis Court held that where an applicant had previously been disbarred in anotherstate, the applicant was notentitled to the benefit of the doubt if equally reasonable inferences could be drawn from a proven fact. Un re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 986.) Five years later, in In re Gossage,this Court further explained: [The applicant’s] heavy burden [of moral rehabilitation] is commensurate with the gravity of his crimes. As ... suggested by the Committee, similar considerations affect the manner in which the evidence is weighed in determining whether the requisite showing of rehabilitation has been made. (Citations). Where serious or criminal misconduct is involved, positive inferences about the applicant’s moral character are moredifficult to draw, _and negative character inferences are stronger and more reasonable. Likewise, numerousillegal and bad acts committed by the applicant cannot reasonably be viewed each in isolation, and instead suggest a pattern of anti-social behavior casting doubt on his moral character. (In re Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1098.) Applicant undisputedly engaged in massive journalistic fraud over the course of several years. He is a pervasive and documentedliar and should not be given the benefit of positive inferences as the Review Department accorded him in determining his rehabilitative efforts. Rather, given his serious misconduct, negative inferences should have been given stronger and more reasonable weight. Applying the correct standard would,in all likelihood, have affected the State Bar Court’s conclusions with respect to the sufficiency ofthe period of Applicant’s 43 exemplary conduct, his stated motives, his level of assistance in indentifying fabricated articles, his mischaracterizations about the numberofarticles he fabricated, his misrepresentations to the New York Bar, his failure to disgorge the profits he made from his fraudulent acts, and the timing and sincerity of written apologies and his appearance on “60 Minutes”. Had the State Bar Court applied this standard, it should have found that Applicantis not currently fit to practice law. VII. CONCLUSION Journalism and law share core fundamental principles — those of commonhonesty and trust. Havingliterally shattered these basic values in the journalism profession, without redemption, Applicant now seeks admission to the legal profession in California. “If [Glass] is admitted to practice law, California courts and others will rely on his wordas an officer of the court.... Indeed, if Glass where to fabricate evidencein legal matters as readily and effectively as he falsified material for magazine articles, the harm to the public and the profession would be immeasurable.” (Review Department Dissenting Opinion, p. 19.)'* The Committee therefore respectfully requests that in light of his serious misconduct and lack of any meaningful and sustained rehabilitation, this Court should set aside the Decision of the State Bar Court, and decline to certify Stephen Randall Glass as i In California, the duties of an attorney include, amongother things: “maintaining the causes confided to him or her [by] meansonly as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (d).) 44 an attorney eligible to practice law in this state. Dated: September 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted, STARR BABCOCK RICHARD J. ZANASSI RACHEL S. GRUNBERG Rachel S. Grunberg Attorneys for Petitioner The Committee of Bar Examiners of The State Bar of California 45 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT8.504(d)(1) I, Joan E. Sundt, state as follows: I I am the secretary to counselfor real party of interest The State Bar of California in the above-entitled action. II. I certify that the word count of the computer software program usedto prepare this documentis 12,814 words. I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawsofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 12, 2011, at San Francisco, California. ofoan E. Sundt ; gf 4,a