GLASS ON ADMISSION

Petitioner’s Answer to Petition for Review

Cal.September 27, 2011

S. 196374 INTHE SUPREME COURT * OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA al 3-------------- =cov pen sen ED In the Matterof gt 10 STEPHEN RANDALL GLASS, 8° aon oo «Orne Applicant for Admission. AFTER A DECISION BY THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. 09-M-11736 Confidential Pursuant To Business & Professions Code § 6060.2 And California Rules of Court, R. 9.15(d) ARTHUR L. MARGOLIS (BAR NO. 57703) MICHAEL A. WILLEMSEN (BAR No.34046) SUSAN L. MARGOLIS (BAR No. 104629) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. WILLEMSEN MARGOLIS & MARGOLIS, LLP 991 ELSINORE DRIVE 2000 RIVERSIDE DRIVE PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Los ANGELES, CA90039 TELEPHONE:(650) 856-1786 TELEPHONE:(323) 953-8996 EMAIL: MWILLEMSEN2000@GMAIL.COM FACSIMILE:(323) 953-4740 ~ EMAIL:MARGOLISS4@LA.TWCBC.COM ~ ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT AND APPLICANT, STEPHEN RANDALL GLASS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION o.oo eecscseessscssssssssssessssssssssusessesnsssssssissssstisessstivesssttiteeseesseeceeseeecc 1 II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION oui..cccessssssssscssssesssssssecesssseseeeceseeeeeeesececc 4 A. This Inquiry Is Focused On Mr. Glass’s Present Moral Character, About Which The Committee Presented Almost No Evidence ceecccccccccsssssessessecceeeeeseeccececccc 4 The Supreme Court Accords“Significant Weight” To The Hearing Department’s Credibility Determinations, Which Found Mr. Glass’s 22 Witnesses To Be “Outstanding” And Highly “Credible” And Found The Committee’s Witnesses’ Credibility To Be “Limited” And “Marginal, At Best? 0.0... 5 There Are No “Important Questions OfLaw” That Need To Be “Settle[d]? occcccccccccsesccesssssssssssssstesesssssessssssssteteceeseseeseeeoecece 6 Review Should Be Denied As The Decision Was “Supported By The Weight Of The Evidence”: The Review Department Found The Evidence In Favor Of Mr. Glass To Be “Overwhelming” .oeececcccccccscssssscessscsevecceseeeccesses 9 1. The Applicant’s Youth Mitigates In Favor Of His Rehabilitation oo... cecsccccescssesssssssecsssssesesecceseceseeeeccce 10 2. The Causes Of Mr. Glass’s Fabrications Are NotIn Dispute .......... 11 3, Both Psychiatrists Who Testified At Trial Opined Mr. Glass Was Rehabilitated And The Committee Presented No Psychiatric Evidence To Refute Them veecccccccccccccccccsesccsseseseeccces.. 11 a. Richard Friedman, M.D. w.c.ccccccccccccccsecscssceseeseesssecceeeeeececcecc. 13 b. Richard Rosenthal, M.D. v..ccccccccccccccsseccssseccesecseeeseeeeceececcccccc. 14 c. Contrary To The Committee’s Claims, No Psychiatrist Testified That Mr. Glass WasStill In The Process Of Rehabilitation In 2005 ........... 16 The Applicant Has Demonstrated Remorse And A Change of Values .....cccccsssscssscsscssssesssssecssesesseecesccce.. 17 Mr. Glass Has Performed Hundreds Of Hours Of Pro Bono And Charitable Work Overthe Past Six Years .....cccccccccccccccssessssessscssesssecsecsessssseeeseeceeeeesccccc. 18 Substantial Time Has Lapsed Since Mr. Glass’s Misconduct .0......cccccscsssessssecsssesessssseessseeeeeeeeeeeccecccc. 19 The Highest-Ranking Editors At Four Of The Five Magazines Where Mr. Glass Fabricated Articles Have Each Forgiven Him And TheFifth Is Deceased..................... 21 a. Martin Peretz oe. eceecccecccessscssssssssessssssseesssesassessaressssessssvessecee 21 b. Jamm Wenmet oo. eecceccssessessesssssssevsssssssesssssiecsssessvsesieseseseseeeseees, 22 c. Policy Review and Harpers c..ccccccccccecsssscssssessssssssssssecsseceeeeccee. 22 More Than 20 Witnesses With Recent And Extensive Contact With The Applicant Testified To His Good Moral Character ....... 22 a. The Law Professors .......cccccscccssssssssssessesssesssecssssossscsssevecseeecesc 24 i. Susan Low Bloch oo. cccccccccsecsssssessseseesessessssecesssesesseeee 24 il. Stephen Cohen o....ccccccccccsccssssssssseesessessecseesseseseseeeeeeees 25 iii. Jeffrey Bauman and Robert Drinan ..........0.000....... 26 b. The Judges ooe.eceeceecseesssesssscsessvessscsssesssessesasesssessseeseseeteees sees, 26 i. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina wo...cececceecccccccccccsceccseeeeeesce. 26 ii. Judge A. Franklin Burgess, Jr. oo..ccecccccsccccccccsesseeseseeee. 27 C. The Attormeys oo. eceecccecscessessssnessssssssessstesseesaressasseseseeeseeeesec. 27 1. Paul Zuckerman ......cccccccccccccssscsssssesssesseesseessessssseeseveeee: 27 il. The Other Attoreys o.c..ccccceccesccscsssssesssssscssteseeeseeeees 29 il il. Julie Hilden, Mr. Glass’s Life Partner .0.0.0..cccccecse 31 d. Four Longtime Friends o.......cccccccceesssesecesessesessesessesestereseecees 33 i. Lawrence Berger oo... cccceccsessessescsssesesescseseeesesscscscsseveveeaes 33 il. Melanie Thernstrom .........ccccccccecccesessssescsvsssesseeseceeaceeeaes 34 ii. Joanne Mariner .0......ccceccccccescsscssesescesssescscssesesssetecseaesses 35 lv. Crispin Rigby o...ceccccccccccescsssesescessessestscscacsesveveceseseeestsees 35 e. Mr. Glass’s Character Witnesses Had Ample Knowledge Of His Misconduct ..0....c.cccseeseeee: 36 Responses To Certain Of The Committee’s Contentions ........ccccceccceseseseseseeees 37 I. Contrary To The Committee’s Contentions, Mr. Glass HasIdentified All Of His Fabrications ....ceccccecccccceeceees 37 a. Mr. Glass’s Initial Failure, In 1998, To Disclose The Eight Fabricated Articles To TNR Was DueToSevere Emotional Distress .........00000.... 37 b. In 2009, Mr. Glass Came Forward To Identify Eight Additional TNR Articles Containing Fabrications To The Bar And To TNR’s Editor-in-Chief 200.0. cccceecccccceeees 42 c. When Mr. Glass Realized TNR’s Corrections Were Incomplete, He Informed Both The Bar And TNR’s Top Editor ...c.cccccccecsccscesessesseeeeee: 44 d. Mr. Glass Has MadeIt Publicly Clear That His Journalism Cannot Be Relied Upon .......c.ccceceecee. 45 2. The Committee Mischaracterizes The Record Concerning Mr. Glass’s New York Bar Application ...0...0.ccccceeee. 47 a. The Hearing Judge Found The “Credible Testimony” To Be That Mr. Glass “Worked Together” With His Counsel, To Identify The Fabrications And Contact The Magazines .......0.c..ccccccccccseseesesseesesteeseeseeveee. 47 i b. Mr. Glass Appropriately Complied With The New York Bar’s Request .........ccccccseesesseseeeees 50 3. TNR Declined Mr. Glass’s Offer To Repay His Salary As Unnecessary And The Review Department Found Monetary Restitution Inapplicable o.0....cc cc cceceeeeeeeens 52 4. Mr. Glass’s Novel Is A “Cautionary Tale” That Was Written As Part Of His Therapy And Has Been Used In A University To Teach Ethics o.oo... 54 5. Mr. Glass Appeared On “60 Minutes” To Publicly Account For His Wrongdoing And To Apologize For His Entire Journalism Career.........0.000.0000... 55 6. Mr. Glass Is Not Required To Re-Establish His Standing In The Journalism Community .0.....cccccccceeeee 56 7. The Allegation Of Racism Is Meritless 0.0.0... cceeeseseesereereneeeees 57 TI. CONCLUSIONocccccecceceesseseseseseseesesseseseessseaesesesacscscsassascscsesscesssvesesstacscecavsvsavaceavavensns 58 iV TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allen v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 912 occccccceccecsseseseeseesesscsesecsesecacsecsecseeesseessseseesees 18 Hall v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1979) 25 Cal.3d 730 c.cccccccseccsscessessseeteeseees 7, 20 Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1966) 65 Cal.2d 447 oo... .cccececeeee 7, 20, 45 Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1061 oo. ceccecccccseseeseeeeesseesetseeseeseeseees 7, 20, 23 In re Andreani (1939) 14 Cal.2d 736 o..ececcecceccccsssseesseeseeeeesseseseesecasesecseessseeserensess 18, 22-23 In re Gossage (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080 oo...cece cccecescseseccceecesepeesseeeseeneas 5, 7, 8, 17, 47 In re Menna (1995) 11 Cal.4th 975 occccccccccsecsseccnesesesesessesesesecsecseserecseceseeeess 7, 8,52 Lubetzky v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 308 wo..ccccccccccccssccssssesseesestersessescsecsnesseaeens 44-45 Martin B. v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1983) 33 Cal.3d 717 oocccceeeeeee eee: 10, 20 Matter of Brown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309 ............ 5, 12,17, 23 Pachecov. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d L041] oooceccccsetecenenseteteeetsenees 4,7, 19, 20, 23 Resner v. State Bar (1967) 67 Cal.2d 799 oo.cccccccccccssccsccstesesescscsseesesecsessessetssecsessesseeaes 1,4 Seide v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1989) 49 Cal.3d 933 occ7, 11-12 Wernerv. State Bar (1954) 42 Cal.2d 187 ooo. cccccccccccccsecescessscetesecsecseseesesssstesssesevseseeees 18 Rules of Court Rules of Court, R. 9.16(a)(1) .occececceecenseseeseeseesceesecesecacsecsscsssesacsecatessscsecnsssevessesssneateneess 6 Rules of Court, R. 9.16(a)(4) occ cccccccccccsscesccscsesecsesscsecsssstseseceessssvsececrsssesesenevanseeeseens 9 S. 196374 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of STEPHEN RANDALL GLASS, Applicant for Admission. I. INTRODUCTION The issue in an admissions proceeding is current moralcharacter:Is the applicant a fit and proper person to be permitted to practice law at this time? (See, e.g., Resnerv. State Bar (1967) 67 Cal.2d 799, 811 (requiring “showingofrehabilitation and of present moralfitness”).) Asto current moral character — which is the controlling question — the Review Department foundthere to be “overwhelming evidence of [Applicant Stephen] Glass’s reform andrehabilitation.” (Review Dept., p. 16; emphasis supplied.) Both the Hearing and Review Departments found Mr. Glass to be rehabilitated, and recommendedhis admission. After a 10-day trial with 27 witnesses and reams of documents, the Hearing Department found Mr. Glass’s 22 witnesses “outstanding” — a finding as to which the Review Departmentsaid, “We agree.” Amongthose witnesses was Martin Peretz, Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic (“TNR”), the magazinethat printed the lion’s share of Mr. Glass’s fabrications. Mr. Peretz, who had reconnected with Mr. Glass, was so struck by his rehabilitation, he flew from Massachusettsto testify in favor ofhis admission. Two psychiatrists, each ofwhom hadtreated Mr. Glass regularly over the course ofthe last five years, testified to their confidence that Mr. Glass would never repeat his misconduct. The Committee offered no psychiatric testimony, andcalled five lay witnesses. A former TNR editor, Charles Lane, was foundto have “limited” credibility as to the central issue — Mr. Glass’s present moral character — as he had not seen or spoken to Mr. Glass in 13 years. The credibility of a former George editor, Richard Bradley, was deemed by the court to be “marginalat best” — his only contact with Mr. Glass in 13 years was a one-hour coffee meeting that Mr. Glass soughtin order to apologize. A third witness’s credibility on present moral character wasalso deemedto be “marginalatbest,” as his only connection to Mr. Glass wasthat he represented parties adverseto the applicantin a 1999 lawsuit. Further, he offered no opinion on Mr. Glass’s current moral character. The Committee’s fourth witness had not spoken to Mr. Glass in 13 years. And, while the Committee’s fifth and final witness had been an editor at a magazine where Mr. Glass had fabricated, he did not know Mr. Glass or work with him. Mr. Glass’s misconduct concluded in 1998, when he was 25 years old. He is now 39. The “overwhelming”evidencetestifies to his maturation, reformation, and rehabilitation over the past 13 years. The Committee presented no testimonyatall refuting the 22 judges, attorneys, law professors, colleagues, friends, and life partner of over 10 years whotestified to the profound changein Mr. Glass. Onthis record, the Hearing and Review Departments were right to recommendhis admission. Indeed, they foundit not a close call, but rather a decision “overwhelmingly” supported by the evidenceof “outstanding” witnesses. Finally, with the weight of the evidenceplainly againstit, the Committee reaches to find supposedly unsettled law requiring review. However, as discussed below,thereis no unsettled law in this matter, and the Committee’s contention even if it were true, would beirrelevant to this matter. Review should be denied. II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION A. This Inquiry Is Focused On Mr. Glass’s Present Moral Character, About Which The Committee Presented Almost No Evidence The essential issue in an admissions proceedingis: Is the applicanta fit and proper person to be permitted to practice law at this time? (See, e.g., Resner v. State Bar (1967) 67 Cal.2d 799, 811 (requiring “showing of rehabilitation and of present moralfitness”).) Yet the Committee’s petition largely ignores evidence of Mr. Glass’s present moral character. Instead, it recounts in great detail Mr. Glass’s misconductas a journalist, which occurred more than 13 years ago, when Mr. Glass was 23 to 25 years old. Mr. Glass is currently 39 yearsold. In Pachecov. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1041, 1056, this Court was “troubled” by the Committee’s focus on decade-old misconduct, rather than current rehabilitation. Similarly, in this matter, the Hearing Judgestatedat the lunch break on the ninth,last day of testimony: “This is an opportunity to examine Mr. Glass’[s] rehabilitation. That’s really what we’re here for. We have a stipulation as to the facts underlying his misconduct. We havea pretty much complete agreement as to what he did wrong. WhatI have not heardis discussions abouthis rehabilitation, except from the Applicant’s side.” (IX Tr. 132:23-133:4) The Review Department agreed: “[T]he Committee ‘appears to have alloweditself to be carried awayby the distant tide of [Glass’s] earlier misconduct.” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 15, quoting Pacheco, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 1056.) The Committee’s petition once again ignores what the Review Department found to be “overwhelming evidence of Glass’s reform andrehabilitation,” instead choosing to focus on his admitted past misconduct of 13 years ago. (Review Dept., p. 16.) B. The Supreme Court Accords “Significant Weight” To The Hearing Department’s Credibility Determinations, Which Found Mr.Glass’s 22 Witnesses To Be “Outstanding” And Highly “Credible” And Found The Committee’s Witnesses’ Credibility To Be “Limited” And “Marginal, At Best” This Court affords “significant weight” to the Hearing Department’s findings, especially credibility assessments: “[T]he hearing panelis in the best position to assess demeanorandcredibility.” Un re Gossage (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080, 1096.) The Review Department noted: “The hearing judge’s credibility determinations are particularly important in this case because‘[rJeformation is a state of mind which ‘may bedifficult to establish affirmatively’ and ‘may notbe disclosed by any certain or unmistakable outward sign.’” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 9, quoting Matter ofBrown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309, 315.) Both the Hearing and Review Departments deemed Mr. Glass’s 22 witnesses “outstanding,” finding them highly credible regarding his current moral character. (Review Dept. Opinion,p. 13.) In contrast, the Committee seeks to support its petition almost exclusively with the testimony of Messrs. Lane and Bradley — testimony that both the Hearing and Review Departments held should be affordedlittle or no weight regarding the applicant’s current moral character. The Hearing Department found: (1) “Mr. Lane’s evaluation ofthe applicant’s current moral character was limited in value, since he had not spoken with [Mr. Glass] for approximately twelve years” (Hearing Dept. Decision,p. 13, fn. 12); and (2) Mr. Bradley’s testimony regarding the applicant’s current moral character was “marginal, at best” Ud. at 11.) Mr. Bradley had not seen Mr. Glass since 1998,other than at a one- hour meeting for coffee in 2003, where Mr. Glass apologized to Mr. Bradley for his fabrications. Prior to that, Mr. Bradley testified he had only ever seen Mr. Glassthree times. (VII Tr. 33:4-14, 17.) The Review Department agreed with the Hearing Department’s determination: “The Committee’s witnesses did not controvert or diminish Glass’s character evidence, as they had no contact with him inthelast ten years, except Richard Bradley, who met with him only once in 2003 when Glass arranged an in-person apology. Wethus givelittle weight to the Committee’s witnesses in assessing Glass’s present moral character.” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 13.) C. There Are No “Important Questions Of Law” That Need To Be “Settle[d]” The Committee claims that review should begranted to “settle important questions of law.” (Petition, p. 5; see Rules ofCourt, R. 9.16(a)(1).) Specifically, the Committee claims an alleged conflict between the well- established rule that reasonable doubts are to be resolvedin favorof the applicant, and languagein a prior case: “***Where 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.***” (in re Gossage (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080, 1098; see also In re Menna (1995) 11 Cal.4th 975, 987.) There is no inconsistency. Commentary aboutthe easeordifficulty of drawing inferences, and about what context makes an inference reasonable, does notnullify the reasonable doubt standard, which has been applied in numerous admission and disbarmentcases for nearly a century. In Hallinan v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1966) 65 Cal.2d 447, 451, the Court, citing cases dating back to 1921, held: “In disciplinary proceedings this court examines and weighsthe evidence andpasses uponits sufficiency. [Citations.] Any reasonable doubts encountered in the making of such an examination should be resolved in favor of the accused.[Citations.] These rules are equally applicable to admissions proceedings.” Subsequent to Hallinan, the reasonable doubt standard was endorsed bythis Court in, among other cases: Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1061, 1068: Seide v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1989) 49 Cal.3d 933, 937; Siegel v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1973) 10 Cal.3d 156, 173; and Hall v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1979) 25 Cal.3d 730, 746 (conc. opn. of Richardson, J.) The Court has endorsed the reasonable doubt rule becauseitis this state’s policy to favor admission of applicants who have achieved reformation. (Pacheco, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 1058.) Indeed, in Gossage itself — the very case the Committee claimsraises a conflict — this Court cites to the reasonable doubt standard. (See Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at 1098.) The languagepetitioner quotes from Gossage and Mennadoesnot repudiate the reasonable doubt standard. This Court may givefact-finders more than one principle to guide how they weigh the evidence. In Gossage, the Court used the reasonable doubt standard, but also articulated the commonsenseprinciple that what makes doubt “reasonable” in any particular case depends on context, including the nature of the misconductat issue. Furthermore, Gossage does not limit the reasonable doubt standard to cases devoid of seriousor criminal misconduct,as petitioner implies. Any such limitation would effectively nullify the reasonable doubt rule, because virtually all reported Bar casesthat have comebefore this Court in the 38 years since Siege/, involved serious or criminal misconduct. The Court does not consider admissions cases basedon lesser misconduct. Additionally, this is not an appropriate case in which to grant review,as the supposed conflict was not determinative. There is every reasonto believe that the State Bar Court applied the principles of Gossage and Mennato this matter as the Hearing Department cited to Menna and the Review Departmentcited to both cases. (Review Dept. Opinion,p. 2, 4, 14, 15; Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 2, 3.) Finally, separate from the reasonable doubt standard, the State Bar Court found Mr. Glass’s 22 witnesses to be impressive and credible in their own right, and found that there was “overwhelming evidence of Glass’s reform and rehabilitation.” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 16.) Moreover, the State Bar Court found the Committee’s witnesses had “limited”or “marginal credibility, at best” with respect to Mr. Glass’s present moral 8 character. (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 11, 13.) In a case, such as this, where the Review Department found the evidenceto be “overwhelming”in favor ofthe applicant, there is no need to ascertain the reasonableness of doubts which did not exist. Thus, any conflict in the law is not relevanthere. D. Review Should Be Denied As The Decision Was “Supported By The Weight Of The Evidence”; The Review Department Found The Evidence In Favor Of Mr. Glass To Be “Overwhelming” The Committee next seeks review on the groundsthat the “decision is not supported by the weightofthe evidence.” (Rules ofCourt, R. 9.16(a)(4).) But the Committee does not address the weightofall the evidence,as is proper, but only that whichit believes supports its position. Twenty-seven witnesses submitted testimony attrial — twenty-two on behalf of the applicant: four law professors; two judges; 10 attorneys, including a longtimefriend and his life partner of more than a decade;three additional friends of more than 10 years; two psychiatrists; and the editor-in-chief of TNR. Of these 27 witnesses, the Committee’s petition mentions only six. Four are mentioned only in passing, two in only one sentence. Then,the petition focuses almost exclusively on Messrs. Lane and Bradley, both of whom were found not credible with respectto the applicant’s current moral character by both the Hearing and Review Departments because they had no significant contact with or knowledge of Mr. Glass’s conduct for more than a decade.! The Committee also improperly quotes from excluded evidence: A newsarticle by Mr. Bradley, and an exhibit at the “Newseum.”(Petition, pp. 18, 23, p. 19-20, quoting Exhibits 5 and 8.) Both were excluded as hearsay. (X Tr. 66:13, 87:15-16.) The Committee did not challenge that ruling below, nor doesit here. The Review Department found that the record showed “overwhelming evidence of Glass’s reform and rehabilitation.” (Review Dept., p. 16; emphasis supplied.) 1. The Applicant’s Youth Mitigates In Favor Of His Rehabilitation This Court has held misconduct “at an early age to be youthful indiscretions, which should not bar admittanceto ourbar after several years of law-abiding conduct.” (Martin B. v. Committee ofBar Examiners (1983) 33 Cal.3d 717, 726.) Mr. Glass’s fabrications, while clearly far more than mere indiscretions, occurred when he wasbetweenthe ages of 23 and 25. This fact — especially coupled with psychiatrist Richard Friedman’s diagnosis that Mr. Glass suffered from arrested developmentuntil he underwenttherapy,infra at 14, mitigates in favor of rehabilitation. The Committee’s other three witnesses also lacked credibility with respect to Mr. Glass’s current moral character. Mr. Landautestified, with the exception of receiving an apologyletter from Mr.Glass in 2004, he had no contact with him in 12 years. (VU Tr. 23:21-23, 25:3-10) Mr. Miller offered no opinion of Mr.Glass’s current character. His only connection to Mr. Glass wasthat he represented parties adverse to Mr.Glass in a lawsuit settled in 2000. (VI Tr. 81:18-20, 88:7-13) Mr. Harrison had been an editor at Harper’s, but he did not know Mr. Glass or work with him. (1X Tr. 241, 242:16) 10 2. ‘The Causes Of Mr. Glass’s Fabrications Are Not In Dispute Mr. Glassandseveral witnesses, including two psychiatrists, testified at length about Mr. Glass’s family background and the reasonshefabricated. As the Committee presented no contrary evidence, and did not dispute this aspect of the casein its petition, the applicant does notrestate that testimonyhere. It is summarized in the Hearing Department’s Decision, pp. 3-7, 19-21; and Applicant’s Responsive Brief on Review,pp. 4-18. Oneaspect of the Committee’s petition must be corrected, however: The Committee suggests Mr. Glass somehow enjoyedfabricating articles. (Petition, p. 10.) The evidenceat trial was that the fabrications caused Mr. Glass’s emotionallife to enter a “horrible period,” during whichhefelt “very emotionally alone” and experienced “a great deal of sadness and pain.” (V Tr. 122:22-23, 126:17-18.) While Mr. Glass initially enjoyed the electricity of presentinghis stories at editorial meetings, he then felt deep self-hatred, knowing they were based on lies. (V Tr. 120:23-122:6.) With each lie, Mr. Glass felt more inadequate and withdrew further from society. (V Tr. 123:13-20; 125:24- 127:18.) 3. Both Psychiatrists Who Testified At Trial Opined Mr. Glass Was Rehabilitated, And The Committee Presented No Psychiatric Evidence To Refute Them Voluntary participation in counseling is evidence of rehabilitation. In Seide, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 941, this Court considered the moral character of an individual previously 1] convicted for cocaine-trafficking: “Under such circumstances, voluntarily enrolling in some form of continuing counseling or substance abuse program mayserveas an indicium of rehabilitation in addition to providing [the applicant} support in times of future hardship.” (Italics in original.) Mr. Glass participated in psychotherapyforvirtually all of the past 12 years, early on as frequently as four sessions weekly. (VI Tr. 78:8-80:3, 74:21-25, 47:19-20.) Prior to his firing, Mr. Glass had not participated in therapy in any meaningful wayas an adult. The Review Department foundthat, with the help of therapy, Mr. Glass: Goa ok akgained insight into the motivations for his misconduct and has developed the tools to deal with his self-destructive behavior. Heis committed to living an honest life.” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 11) The two psychiatrists who treated Mr. Glass? in Los Angeles — Richard Friedman and Richard Rosenthal testified at trial, both opining he wasrehabilitated and would not repeat his misconduct. “Significant weight” should be given to the testimony of a therapist who has examined the applicant at length and concluded recidivism is unlikely because of the individual’s level of remorse, shift in basic values, and ability to accept responsibility for past misconduct. (See In the Matter ofBrown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309, 319.) The Committee presented no psychiatric evidence, in refutation or otherwise. ° Mr. Glass’s two psychiatrists focused on different aspects ofhis life and were aware of each other’s work. 12 a. Richard Friedman, M.D. In 2005, after Mr. Glass moved to Los Angeles, he began weekly therapy with psychiatrist Richard Friedman. (IV Tr. 47:19-20.) Since 1969, Dr. Friedman has been a memberofthe clinical faculty at UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute. (IV Tr. 40:12-18; Exhibit “K.”) He has workedin private practice for more than 40 years. (IV Tr. 44:15- 23.) : Dr. Friedmantestified that, over five years ofweekly treatment, he observed Mr. Glass “throughlots of challenging experiences, andI think I’vereally gotten to know [Mr. Glass] in a deep way, and I havea feeling for who he is, what he’s madeof....***” (IV Tr. 51:1-7.) Dr. Friedmantestified he “ha[s] a high level of confidence in the opinion that I’ve formed of him,” andis certain Mr. Glass has no sociopathic personality traits. (IV Tr. 74:6-8; 81:20-82:3, 56:16-17.) Dr. Friedmanstated he had read both parties’ Pre-Trial Statements and Mr. Glass’s moral character application, but “none ofit surprised me,” noting that Mr. Glass had not been “soft-soaping, soft-pedaling any of” his misconduct. (IV Tr. 53:8-11; 64:22-25.) Dr. Friedmantestified he has “never seen”the applicant present himself in an unwarranted favorable light, “if anything, the contrary.” (IV Tr. 53:14-22.) Dr. Friedman testified Mr. Glass is now a “scrupulously honest person,” who has “grown up”since his misconduct, and is honest and responsible. (IV Tr. 57:6, 50:20-21.) He explained: 13 “[Mr. Glass’s] development wasarrested. He grew up. He wasvery, very immature, and grew up in the intervening period, with a lot of help and therapy, and from circumstances and people and his own reflectiveness, and the traumaitself, which really broke somestuff loose...” (IV Tr. 64:1-8.) Dr. Friedmantestified to his opinion of Mr. Glass’s present moral character: “T think he is honest. He is responsible. He has very good judgment. He has the capacity to handle very, very difficult, frustrating experiences with poise and reflectiveness, and I think that, you know, some people grow out of trauma, and J think he’s one of those people.” (IV Tr. 51:13-17.) He further testified Mr. Glassis not at risk for repeating his misconduct: “... Lwould be astonishedto discover that happen, both from the standpoint of real growth in his character and his moralsense....” (IV Tr. 56:25-57:6.) b. Richard Rosenthal, M.D. Also beginning in 2005, Richard Rosenthal, M.D., a psychiatrist who is on the UCLAfaculty, treated Mr. Glass, on average, once or twice per month. (VII Tr. 81:4-10, 92:2-3.) He has been active on the Ethics Committee of the Southern California Psychiatric Society, and is a distinguishedlife fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. (VII Tr. 84:23-25, 85:2-3.) Dr. Rosenthal has published 40 times and was “very involved” in developing the DSM-IV,including serving “on the committee responsible for impulse control disorders.” (VIII Tr. 82:20; 84:16-21; Exhibit “S”.) Dr. Rosenthal further served as a lieutenant commanderin the U.S. Navy where “primarily whatI did was evaluations of people who 14 were manipulating, people who were faking variousthingsto get out ofthe service.” (VHUI Tr. 78:17-24; 120:11-13.) Dr. Rosenthaltestified that, before he met Mr. Glass, he was “prejudiced”against him, and his feelings were “strong”: “It’s because [of] what I had heard, and becauseI have strong bias,I guess, about people whoplagiarize orfabricate, journalists or historians, nonfiction authors whoplagiarize or fabricate.” (VIII Tr. 146:23-147:5.) However, Dr. Rosenthaltestified that, after evaluating Mr. Glass,it is his opinion Mr. Glassis rehabilitated. “[H]e is extremely honest, and conscientiously so, that he really makes a point of disclosing things, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety, and that he has learned a lot from his experience. He’s had some very good therapy. He’s workedreally hard atit, and he’s a muchstronger andbetter person than he wasbefore.” (VIII Tr. 102:2-8.) Dr. Rosenthaltestified that Mr. Glass has never hadany sociopathic personality features, andit is his opinion Mr. Glass wouldnotrevert to his previous state of dishonesty. (VII Tr. 105:2-4, 107:4-6.) “I think [Mr. Glass has] evolved as a humanbeing, and he’s done a tremendous amountofwork in understanding things about himself that he was not aware of then.*** Sooke ok 2k “[I]f he were under tremendousstress, or if there were a problem thathefelt he washaving difficulty with, he would knowto discuss it with somebody and not let something get out of handto thepoint that it was before.” (VIII Tr. 105:6-25) Asked whether Mr. Glass would pose “any danger to the public”if admitted, 15 Dr.Rosenthal testified, “I not only don’t think he would pose any danger, I think he would be an outstanding attorney.” (VIII Tr. 147:20-148:2.) c. Contrary To The Committee’s Claims, No Psychiatrist Testified That Mr. Glass WasStill In The Process Of Rehabilitation In 2005 The Committee, and the Review Department’s dissenting opinion, claim that Dr. Rosenthaltestified Mr. Glass wasstill in the “process” of recovering from fabricating in 2005, when Dr. Rosenthalfirst evaluated him. This is flat-out incorrect: Dr. Rosenthal did not so testify. Dr. Rosenthaltestified that when Mr. Glass first saw him in 2005. the applicant’s “honesty wasclear.” (VIII Tr. 148:17.) In fact, Dr. Rosenthaltestified that, at that period, Mr. Glass wasstill in the “process”of dealing ~ not with his honesty — but with his self-esteem, “the tremendous shamehe wasfeeling” about his misconduct, and family issues. (VIII Tr. 148:17-22.) “So you asked me whatthe elementsor aspects were that cameinto therapy, and his overcoming the shamethat he wasstill feeling in 2005, and when I began working with him, it was very muchin evidence... in terms of what my work with him consistedof, I think the two things that were most important in his continued therapy was dealing with the shame and learning to forgive himself... “Then the other area wasthe continuing family issues, and his learning to haverealistic expectations, set boundaries with his family, and also in his current job, but primarily with his family and the ongoing issues there.” (VIII Tr. 94:19-95:9.) 16 Dr. Friedmantestified similarly: Q. Andwasheseeing you [beginning in 2005] because he felt he needed treatment for his propensity for lying? A. No. Ashe presented himself from the beginning,he felt that he had, you know,overcomethat. That wasn’t an issue.*** (IV Tr. 49:1-6.) 4, The Applicant Has Demonstrated Remorse And A Change of Values One’s owntestimony about “his misconduct, remorse, and change of values... is a significantfactor....” in determining rehabilitation. (In the Matter ofBrown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309, 317.) The Hearing Department found that Mr. Glass has “credibly shown remorse and shameforhis acts,” (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 26), finding: “At every opportunity during the testimony on this matter, [Mr. Glass] expressed his remorseforhis terrible errors in judgment.” (Id, p. 26.) “Applicant repeatedly and sincerely expressed his regret for the fabrications that have becomeso identified with his journalism career.” (d., p. 12, fn. 10.) This Court shouldafford “significant weight”to that finding. (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at 1096.) Further evidence of Mr. Glass’s remorseis that he sent approximately 100 mostly- handwritten apology letters to those his misconduct affected. (VI Tr. 38:4, 45:2.) In virtually all the letters, Mr. Glass provided contact information so those he harmed “could get in touch with me if they wanted to,to talk aboutit further.” (VI Tr. 45:14-17.) 17 Mr.Glasstestified that writing the letters was a “difficult process,” explaining that the “act of writing a letter” has an “effect on the writer as well.” (VI Tr. 45:6, 48:1.) Melanie Thernstrom,a longtime friend of the applicant’s, observed the process as “painful and exhausting” for him. (III Tr. 21:20.) Another longtime friend, Lawrence Berger, observed the “seriousness” with which Mr. Glass wrote the apologies. (IV Tr. 19:24.) The Committee attempts to denigrate Mr. Glass’s apologies because they were made when Mr. Glass was preparing for his New York Barapplication and beforehis novel was published. But had Mr. Glass apologized soon after his misconduct, the Committee would say his letters were too early to be sincere. Furthermore, had Mr. Glass written the apology letters for the purpose ofusing them as evidence before the New York Bar, as the Committee suggests, Mr. Glass would surely have saved copies ofthe letters. He did not. (VI Tr. 48:11.) 5. Mr. Glass Has Performed Hundreds Of Hours Of Pro Bono And Charitable Work Overthe Past Six Years In granting reinstatement, this Court has frequently given weight to community service. (See e.g. Allen v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 912, 914; Werner v. State Bar (1954) 42 Cal.2d 187, 190; In re Andreani (1939) 14 Cal.2d 736, 748.) Mr. Glass has performed hundreds of hours ofpro bono and charitable work. 18 In New York, Mr. Glass volunteered at a senior center. (VII Tr. 52:3.) In Los Angeles, he volunteered at a charitable food-delivery service. (VII Tr. 52:4-5; IX Tr. 205:8-11.) When his work hours conflicted with the service’s schedule, Mr. Glass changed the nature ofhis volunteering: He donated pro bonolegal research, working continuously on such projects for more than six years. He has performed hundredsof hoursofresearch for attorneys on behalf of underprivileged youth, victims of race-based violence, and victims of drunk drivers. (Exhibit “B,”at 4, 30; [X Tr. 225:21-226:15, 228:1-21; IX Tr. 225:3-5; VII Tr. 52:4-11.) Mr.Glass has also volunteered to speak with students about his misconduct, at Columbia University’s journalism school, to an ethics class at George Washington University, and to students in CORO,an organization training young people to be civic leaders. (IX Tr. 203:7-204:2.) Mr.Glass also donates substantial timeto assist the firm’s homeless and special- education clients with some of the basic challenges oftheir daily lives. (IX Tr. 225:14- 227:25, 228:22-229:22.) 6. Substantial Time Has Lapsed Since Mr. Glass’s Misconduct The Court has “recognized that the passage oftime lessensthe significance ofan applicant’s misconduct, particularly when that misconduct occurred long before his or her application to the bar.” (Pacheco, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 1057.) Here, “applicant’s misconduct commencedin late 1995 and continued to 1998. From 1998to the present, 19 applicant has engagedin a regular course of conduct that shows a concertedeffort to rehabilitate from thoseserious errors in judgment.” (Hearing Dept. Decision, pp. 18-19.) The 13-year period in this case from the last act of misconductto the California Supreme Court proceeding compares favorably with the periodsthat elapsed in other cases. (See Pacheco, supra, (ten-year period without misconduct justified admission); Kwasnik, supra, at 1070 (“[t]he evidentiary significance of an applicant’s misconductis greatly diminished by the passage of time [10 years] and by the absence of similar, more recent misconduct”); Martin B., supra, 33 Cal.3d at 726 (“passage of nine years with an unblemished, exemplary record,in itself should be sufficient to show rehabilitation”); see also Hall, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 742 and Hallinan, supra, 65 Cal.3d at 464 (both holding passage ofsix years sincelast incident of misconduct sufficient for admission).) The Committee seeks to reduce the duration of Mr. Glass’s rehabilitation by arguing that Mr. Glass made a misrepresentation on his 2002 application to the New York Bar whenhe stated he “worked with” the magazinesto identify his fabricated articles. The evidenceattrial, infra at p. 46, was that Mr. Glass, with the assistance of counsel, “worked with” three magazines and, through counsel, offered cooperation to two more. The Hearing Department determined there was no misconductrelating to the New York Bar. (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 15.) This credibility determination should be afforded significant weight. 20 7. The Highest-Ranking Editors At Four Of The Five Magazines WhereMr. Glass Fabricated Articles Have Each Forgiven Him, And The Fifth Is Deceased a. Martin Peretz Martin Peretz purchased TNR in 1974 and wasits “sole loss payor” for approximately 33 years — including the period Mr. Glass worked there. (I Tr. 139:20-22.) As Editor-in-Chief, Mr. Peretz is “fully involved in the journalistic business ofthe magazine.” (J Tr. 147:12-13.) Mr. Peretz testified he was “extremely distressed” after Mr. Glass’s lies were discovered. (II Tr. 156:22.) However,unlike any of the Committee’s witnesses, Mr. Peretz reconnected with Mr.Glass. (I Tr. 136:21-25.) Mr. Peretz, who lives in Massachusetts, flew to Californiato testify in person that he believes Mr. Glass should be admitted. (II Tr. 157:9-11.) He believes Mr. Glass to now be “a manofprobity, a man who haslearned,painfully, from his mistakes...” (JI Tr. 158:2-4.) “T think [Mr. Glass] hasa great deal of responsibility [for his misconduct], and he has acknowledged it, and he’s suffered forit.” (II Tr. 148:22-23.) Mr. Peretz believes that Mr. Glass “did not do this out ofevil intentions or wickedness,” but was “caughtin a psychological morass.”(II Tr. 152:5-6, 157:23.): “***T don’t think what Steve committed, and his journeyafter, should condemn him to beexiled from respectable, ethical society.” (II Tr. 137:11-15.) 21 Contrary to the Committee’s claim, Mr. Peretz testified he would permit Mr. Glass to write articles for TNR once again. (II Tr. 137:10-15.) b. Jann Wenner Jann Wenner,the publisher of Rolling Stone, has also forgiven Mr. Glass. His forgivenessis particularly significant because he waspersonally sued, in addition to Rolling Stone, for Mr. Glass’s fabrications. (VIII Tr. 84:23-24; [X Tr. 41:10-15, 201:10- 15, 220:5-13; Exhibit 1, pp. 771-804.) c. Policy Review and Harper’s Policy Review’s editor, Adam Meyerson, and Lewis Lapham,the top editor at Harper’s, both accepted Mr. Glass’s apology. (IX Tr. 46:2-6, 242:8-10, 245:1-2: Exhibit “V".) The New York Daily News quoted Mr. Lapham:“‘It wasa niceletter,’ said Lapham, whosaid he forgives Mr. Glass.” (Exhibit “V”.) 8. More Than 20 Witnesses With Recent And Extensive Contact With The Applicant Testified To His Good Moral Character “[T]he favorable testimony” of character witnesses “should weight heavily in the scale ofjustice” in “reaching a fair conclusion on the question of reformation....” 22 (Andreani, supra, 14 Cal.2d at 749-750.>.) Testimonials by attorneys and judges are afforded “significant weight.” (See Kwasnik, supra, 50 Cal.3d at 1068.) The Court is “empowered to accept”their recommendation,alone, for admission. (See Pacheco, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 1053.) In all, Mr. Glass introduced the testimony of 22 witnesses: four law professors; two judges; 10 attorneys, including a longtimefriend andhis life partner of more than a decade; three additional friends of more than 10 years; two psychiatrists; and the editor- in-chief of 7NVR. “These witnesses were all aware ofthe applicant’s history concerning the fabricated articles, yet uniformly praised applicant’s current high standards for honesty and integrity.” (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 22.) The Review Departmentsimilarly “afford[ed] great weight to Glass’s character witnesses, who were community leaders, employers, judges, and attorneys, and all of whom spoke with the utmost confidence in Glass’s good moral character and rehabilitation.” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 12.) The Committee cites decisionsstating that character witnesses alone do not establish the required degree of good character. (Petition, pp. 39-40.) But here, the 3 The applicant, at times, cites to matters concerning reinstatementofa disbarred attorney because they involve an analogous proceeding. However, the applicant’s burden for admission is lighter than the burden on a disbarred attorney. See In the Matter ofBrown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309, 316. 23 witnesses not only testified to their opinions of Mr. Glass’s outstanding character, but were also percipient witnesses — many, for more than a decade — to his conduct, which demonstrated his sustained high level of honesty and rehabilitation. a. The Law Professors i. Susan Low Bloch Susan Low Bloch,an attorney, is a professor at Georgetown’s law school, which Mr. Glassattended. She clerked for the Hon. Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, and served on the D.C. Bar’s Ethics Committee, Judicial Evaluation Committee, and Judicial Nominations Committee, which reports directly to the President. (I Tr. 67:15-17; 72:22-73:21.) Professor Bloch met Mr. Glass in 1997, when he washer student. (I Tr. 76:1-2.) In 1998, after Mr. Glass’s fabrications were discovered, she observed him to be “devastated” by his own conduct. (I Tr. 78:15, 83:18-19.) Professor Bloch hired Mr. Glassas her researchassistant, a position in which he served for approximately two years; they have stayed in touch through the present. (I Tr. 79:20-24.) She testified he is transformed and “totally honest.” (I Tr. 86:14-15.) Professor Bloch recommended Mr. Glass’s admission, and testified she would not have flown from Washington to Los Angelesto appearif she were not “personally 100 percent sure that I had confidence in [him].” (I Tr. 127:20, 89:10-11.) The Committee’s petition suggests Professor Bloch would have provided different 24 testimony had she known more information about Mr. Glass’s fabrications. But Professor Blochtestified she had discussions with Mr. Glass regarding his fabrications, read news accounts about the subject, and read both parties’ Pre-Trial Statements, detailingall of the Committee’s contentions,“several times” and “[n]othing in there makes me question my confidence in him.” (I Tr. 87:11-21; 86:14-20; 94:2-10.) ii. Stephen Cohen Stephen Cohen, an attorney and Georgetownlaw professor, previously served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and has published journalism in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and TNR. (II Tr. 173:8- 10, 176:7-8; 169:9-10; 171:9-10.) Professor Cohen met Mr. Glass in 1998, when the applicant was his student. (II Tr. 175:22-25.) While Mr. Glass was in law school, they had dinner roughly once every six weeks or two months. (II Tr. 178:2-3.) They continued to see each other regularly through 2005, while Professor Cohen’s daughterattended a California college. (II Tr. 184:14-22.) Professor Cohen testified Mr. Glass has been open andforthright about his misconduct. (II Tr. 177:12-24.) Indeed, he asked Mr. Glass to meet with his young children to “teach them a very important lesson about facing up to it when you do something terribly wrong, and not attempting to minimizeit or downplayit....***” (II Tr. 178:8-10.) 25 Professor Cohen believes Mr. Glass is “fully rehabilitated.” (II Tr. 181:10-12, 182:17.) Were Mr. Glass admitted, Professor Cohentestified he would trust the applicant with his ownlegal affairs. (II Tr. 182:23-25.) lil. Jeffrey Bauman and Robert Drinan Jeffrey Bauman and Robert Drinan, both attorneys and law professors, provided affidavits for Mr. Glass. (Exhibit “L” at { 3; Exhibit J.) Father Drinan, a Jesuit priest whotaught Professional Responsibility, stated he “ha[d] talked on numerousoccasions” with Mr. Glass about the fabrications and cover-up andis “confident that [Mr. Glass] understands the gravity of his mistakes,” “is genuinely remorseful,” “has learned,” “and will not repeat [his misconduct].” (Exhibit J at 4 6.) Professor Bauman, whohired Mr.Glassas his researchassistant, testified he “ha{s] the utmost faith in Steve and believe[s] he is a person ofthe highest moral caliber...” (Exhibit L.) b. The Judges i. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina Judge Ricardo M. Urbina,a sitting judge since 1981, serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (Exhibit “H”at § 2.) In Summer 1999, Mr. Glass interned for Judge Urbina, who had personal “daily contact” with him,“personall[ly] 26 supervised” his work, and described Mr. Glass as “diligent, honest, and professional.” (id. at 4 3.): “[Mr. Glass] will perform very well as a memberofthe bar. I am aware of his backgroundandbelieve that he has matured and ripenedinto a very responsible and honest individual whoisfit to join the legal profession.” (id. at 95.) ii. Judge A. Franklin Burgess, Jr. Judge A. Franklin Burgess, Jr. serves on the Superior Court ofthe District of Columbia. (Exhibit “G”at § 2.) Mr. Glass clerked for Judge Burgessthe year after he graduated, during which Judge Burgess had personal contact with him [daily and throughout the day” and “personally supervised” his work. (Id. at {| 3.) Judge Burgess stated Mr. Glass was “ethical” and “honest... in all respects.” (/d. at 44.) c. The Attorneys Mr.Glass presented so manycredible attorney witnessesthat, at trial, the Hearing Judge stated, “I’m at the point where I think I’ve seen plenty” and noted “all of them were very good witnesses.” (III Tr. 160:14-20.) Accordingly, Mr. Glass did notcall all the attorney witnesses he had scheduledtotestify. (III Tr. 160:23.) i. Paul Zuckerman Paul Zuckerman,licensed since 1991, is the managingpartner of Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, the 11-attorney law firm where Mr. Glass has workedas a law 27 clerk for over six years. (III Tr. 49:14, 52:6-7; 46:12) Mr.Glass appliedto the firm in response to an advertisement. (III Tr. 52:20-25.) His coverletter disclosed his history of fabrication. Mr. Zuckermantestified that after he read theletter, he “laughed to myself, and promptly deleted” the resume. (III Tr. 59:9- 13.) But then, Mr. Zuckermantestified, he recalled his own prior struggle with alcoholism, and had a changeofheart: “***I’ve been given a verybig second chance, and 1 thought that I wasbeing incredibly judgmental....***” (III Tr. 53:14-54:2.) After an interview, Mr. Zuckerman was“firmly convinced” Mr.Glass “had gone through a change.” However, the firm initially “kept a very close eye” on Mr. Glass, “gave him very limited assignments,” and “exhibited a lot of oversight over what he was doing.” (II Tr. 60:8-9, 15-17.) Mr. Zuckermantestified he has worked with Mr. Glassfive orsix days a week, 10 to 12 hoursper day, for the past six years, and Mr. Glassis “my best, absolutebest, employeein the firm,” and “brings an amazing amount of honesty and probity to the job.” (UI Tr. 59:19, 21-24, 70:5-7.) Asked “[W]hat is your opinion of [Mr. Glass’s] present moral character for honesty?” Mr. Zuckermantestified: “Exemplary.” (III Tr. 66:4-6.) “Everything that we’ve done over the past six years. There’s never been anything that he’s done that’s lacked honesty or probity. In fact, I think that, you know,I love having himatthe office, because he’s like my touchstone, my benchmark, for honest and proper conduct...” (III Tr. 66:16-21; emphasis supplied.) Mr. Zuckermantestified that Mr. Glass is now assigned the firm’s “most complex cases” with the “mostdifficult clients....***” (III Tr. 61:7-8.) 28 “[WhenI first hired [Mr. Glass], there was no wayI wasgiving him my Social Security number and my mother’s maiden name. Hecan havethat today.” (III Tr. 60:19-22.) Mr. Zuckermantestified to two examples of Mr. Glass’s outreach to the firm’s homeless clients. One was “a homeless, crack-addicted, mentally-handicapped guy who lived in the streets, undera tarp” and was HIV-positive. (III Tr. 62: 17-18.) The client “would show upin the office filthy, with fingernails six inches long, covered in fleas and lice and his own waste and his ownfilth.” (III Tr. 63:9-11.) Mr. Glass “spenta lot of time”with the client, introducing him to a volunteer program, a homeless-services center, and an HIV organization. (II Tr. 63:11-25.) Moreover, Mr. Glass took the lead role in getting another mentally-ill client — who wasat times delusional and covered in feces — cleaned up,placed in a sober-living environment, and treated by an ostomy nurse. (III Tr. 64:21-65:11.) ii. The Other Attorneys Attorneys Jeffrey McIntyre and Adam Silverstein worked alongside Mr. Glass virtually every day for three and fouryears, respectively. (III Tr. 99:20-24; 103:22; 105:22.) Mr. McIntyre, licensed since 1974,testified Mr. Glass “went outof his wayat all times” to “do[] the right thing.” (III Tr. 105:18-106:1) Mr. Silverstein, licensed since 1998, found Mr. Glass“truthful,” “honest,” “open,” and “candid.” (IW Tr. 141:25, 144:7, 148:19-20) Bruce Fishelman and Alejandro Blanco, attorneys who have worked on cases with 29 Mr.Glass, strongly recommendedhis admission. Mr. Fishelman, licensed since 1975 and a former prosecutor,testified Mr. Glass “has grown immensely and emerged as a different man, with profoundrespect for ethical behavior as a result ofhis ordeal.” (Exhibit A at 9] 4-10, 12, 22-24, 38.) He observed Mr. Glass appropriately resolve an incident with an expert witness which raised “ethical considerations.” (Id. at F§ 39, 40.) Mr. Blanco,licensed since 1988, believes Mr. Glass to be of such “upright character” he would trust him “with mylife.” (III Tr. 121:13-15, 128:4-5, 133:23-134:2.) “***Tt’s clearly at the forefront of his mind, the damage that he caused, and in my view,it grips his heart.” (II Tr. 130:10-12.) Kenneth Goldman and Jonathan Ritter worked alongside Mr. Glass as co-law clerks, and later supervised him as attorneys. (Exhibit “B”at § 4; Exhibit “D”at q 5.) Mr.Ritter testified Mr. Glass’s “work is exceptionaland ethically rigorous.” (Exhibit “D”at {| 22.) Mr. Goldman described an incident when Mr. Glass “talk[ed] with the client about his own past wrongdoing”to help her appreciate the needtotestify truthfully. (Exhibit “B”at § 26.) John Foran — an attorney since 1972, who managed a Marylandlaw firm that employed Mr. Glass as a summerclerk — “highly recommended”Mr.Glass for admission: “***He was very forthcoming about [his misconduct]. We decidedto take a chance and neverregretted it. He always maintainfed] himself in an exemplary mannerin every wayin our office. I think he learned some valuablelessons with his problems and I am confidentthat they are ancient history...” (Exhibit F.) 30 iii, Julie Hilden, Mr. Glass’s Life Partner Julie Hilden, an attorney and applicant’s life partner of more than 10 years’, testified to Mr. Glass’s honesty and moralcharacter. The Hearing Department found Ms. Hildenhighly credible, writing: “Perhaps the most persuasive witness presented on behalf of the applicant was Ms.Hilden, whospoke sincerely and eloquently regardinghis current moral character.” (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 10.) The Review Department agreed. (Review Dept. Opinion,p. 13.) Ms. Hilden graduated from Harvard College magna cum laude and from Yale Law School. (IV Tr. 86:8; 87:13; 87:18-88:5.) She clerked for the Hon. Stephen Breyer, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the Hon. Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York; and was a Lecturer in Legal Writing at Cornell Law. (IV Tr. 91:6-7; 90:18; 88:14-17.) Ms. Hilden worked for Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.for three years. (IV Tr. 91:23-25.) Underthe supervision of David Kendall, she assisted in the defense of then-President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton in certain civil actions. (IV Tr. 92:1-15.) Although admitted to practice law in New York and D.C., she currently works as a writer and editor. (IV Tr. 86:2-5, 92:16-24, 93:2-13, 95:12-19.) Ms. Hilden testified that when she wasintroduced to Mr. Glass,in 2000, she was 4 Counsel for the Committee of Bar Examiners cross-examined Ms. Hilden on why she and Mr. Glass were not married. She explained: “I’m not going to marry anyone until gay people can marry whothey choose, for one thing, and I think Stevefeels the same way....” (IV Tr. 123:17-19) 3] “skeptical,” having been a TNR subscriber, who read someofhis fabricated articles. (IV Tr. 98:19, 117:2-6.) She decidedto put Mr. Glass on “probation.” (IV Tr. 98: 19-99:8.) Within five or six months, they saw each other “every weekend,” and were “really dating and in a relationship.” (IV Tr. 102:10-12.) In 2001, Ms. Hilden suffered a “serious medical problem,” and went to an E.R.in New York, where she lived. (IV Tr. 102:16.) Mr. Glass immediately traveled from D.C. to her bedside. (IV Tr. 102:24-103:4.) Ms. Hilden underwent “a 10-month siege of illness,” during which Mr. Glass devotedly cared for her. (IV Tr. 103:13-22.) Mr. Glass moved to New York later in 2001, and movedin with Ms. Hilden in 2003. (IV Tr. 103:23-25, 104:19-25.) They havelived together ever since. (IV Tr. 105:1-3.) Ms. Hilden has observed changes in Mr. Glass since they started dating. Initially, he showedsigns of trauma, including nightmares that continue, but with less frequency, to the present. (IV Tr. 106:15-107:5.) However, Ms. Hilden observed “he’s become much more of a confident person.” (IV Tr. 105:8-15.) She believes Mr. Glass maturedafter his misconduct, becoming more empathetic. He “connects with people emotionally andI think he draws upon his own experience in doing that.” (IV Tr. 108:3-18; 109:2-6.) She testified honesty was very important to her: “Yes, absolutely. I mean, I don’t know how you could havea relationship withoutthat, or I think, whenrelationships lose that, then they fall apart.” (IV Tr. 101:15-17.) 32 Ms. Hilden testified Mr. Glass has “never” been dishonest with her, or she would havelikely left the relationship. (IV Tr. 113:19-114:15.) Shetestified honesty is “a hugely important value to” him. (IV Tr. 115:19-25.) d. Four Longtime Friends i. Lawrence Berger Lawrence Bergeris a friend of Mr. Glass’s, who has known him for more than 10 years. (IV Tr. 25:8-10.) He testified that, based on “a lot of close personal observation, in fairness, probably more than one would subject an ordinary friend to, because of Stephen’s past...,” it is his opinion thatthe applicant is “remarkably ethical.” (IV Tr. 18:4-19:2.) Mr. Berger graduated from Yale University summa cum laude, and was a Rhodes Scholar and White House Fellow. (IV Tr. 2:9-17, 3:7, 5:8.) He is the C.E.O. of Wireless Generation, an educational-technology company employing 400 people. (IV Tr. 9:1-2, 23.) Mr. Bergertestified he has “never heard an effort [by Mr. Glass] to minimize [his misconduct], and, if anything I would sayit plays a significant part in his emotionallife even to this day....***” (IV Tr. 20:1 1-13.) 33 ii. Melanie Thernstrom Melanie Thernstrom,a journalist and friend of Mr. Glass, testified she has known the applicant “very closely” for more than 10 years andis “in close touch” with him.(III Tr. 9:15-16.) For instance, when Ms. Thernstrom broke up with her ex-fiancé, she stayed with Ms. Hilden and Mr. Glass, who “helped me get back on my feet....***”(III Tr. 11:12-12:3.) Ms. Thernstrom graduated from Harvard with highest honors; earned an M.F.A.in Creative Writing from Cornell; published three books; had her journalism published in The New Yorker and Vanity Fair; andis a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine. (III Tr. 6:2-10, 4:1-19, 8:11-12, 2:7-16.) Shetestified: “WhenJulie first told me she was dating [Mr. Glass], I was completely horrified, and as a journalist, you know,I had a very strong negative feelings about whathe did, as you know, the members ofmy community all did, and certainly tried to talk her out ofit. “Then, getting to know him, you know, I went from horrified to skeptical, and then grudging,like, “Well, he seems nice, but he probably isn’t, you know, deep down. I’m sure you know, maybeit’s all an act,’ and then, in getting to know him closely overthe years, the dawningrealization that this is really an extraordinary person,that he is a really wonderful person, an incredibly good partner, just very kind, generous, loyal, responsible, empathetic, someone whoreally cares about other people....*** “***7This journey I took from horrorto affirmation is one I saw every one of Julie’s friends go through over the years, andthereis nota single friend of hers now who doesn’t feel the same wayI do....***”(II Tr. 10:3-11:3.) Ms. Thernstrom testified that the best evidence of her confidence in Mr. Glass’s positive moralcharacteris that in 2009, she and her husband named Mr. Glass and Ms. 34 Hilden as the godparents andlegal guardiansoftheir children, were she and her husband to pass away: “***7 can think of no greater statement that speaks to how I feel about [Mr. Glass] than I would want him to raise my children.” (III Tr. 12:8-17.) iii. Joanne Mariner Joanne Mariner, an attorney and friend ofMr. Glass’s for more than a decade, was, at the time ofhertestimony, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Program. (Exhibit “C”.) She is a 1992 Yale Law graduate and clerked for the Hon. Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (/d. at § 2, 5.) Ms. Marinertestified that from 2000 to 2004, she saw Mr. Glass “often several days per week” and has had “hundreds of conversations with Mr. Glass” over the past decade. Since Mr. Glass’s move to Los Angeles, they have remained “in touch.” She believes him to be “of excellent moral character” and to have “matured significantly, overcome his past transgressions, and changed for the better.” (/d. at {| 22, 24, 25.) She “would trust Mr. Glass with her ownlegal affairs” and “would feel completely comfortable working alongside him on a legal matter.” (Jd. at § 25.) iv. Crispin Rigby Crispin Rigby — a friend of Mr. Glass’s since 1997, prior to Mr. Glass’s being terminated from journalism — has seen Mr. Glass mature into a person “committed to an 35 honest and trustworthy life.” (Exhibit “E” at § 20.) Since graduating from law school in 2001, Mr. Rigby has workedfor the U.S. Department of Laboron projects concerning labor abuse in the developing world, and HIV/AIDSeducation. (/d. at § 2(f), (g).) He testified to Mr. Glass’s rehabilitation. (Id. at 4 14, 18.) e. Mr. Glass’s Character Witnesses Had Ample Knowledge Of His Misconduct Without citing to the record, the Committee asserts that Mr. Glass’s character witnesses lacked sufficient knowledgeofhis misconduct. (Petition, p. 41.) In fact, each of them wasfully aware of the nature and magnitudeofhis deceptions, not only from what Mr.Glass had told them in great detail, but also from the media. Moreover, virtually all of Mr. Glass’s character witnessestestified to having read both parties’ Pre- Trial Statements, in which Mr. Glass’s misconduct and efforts at rehabilitation, as well as the Committee’s allegations, were set forth. The Review Departmenthasstated, in the discipline context, that a character witness’s knowledgeofan attorney’s misconduct may be established by showing the witness reviewed the Pre-Trial Statements. See In The Matter ofRiordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 41, 50, fn. 20. Drs. Friedman and Rosenthal also read Mr. Glass’s voluminous Moral Character Application. (IV Tr. 64:9-11; VII Tr. 95:15-22) E. Responses To Certain Of The Committee’s Contentions 1. Contrary To The Committee’s Contentions, Mr. Glass Has Identified All Of His Fabrications The Committee argues that Mr. Glass is not rehabilitated for two principalreasons: First, the Committee states that, in 1998, Mr. Glass “failed to formally disclose to the editors of TNR at least eight fabricatedarticles.” (Petition, p. 23.) However,thereis no dispute thatat the time, Mr. Glass wasdistraught and contemplating suicide; that he has since informed TNR’s editor-in-chief of every fabricated article; and that he came forward to disclosethe eight articles at issue to TVR as soon as herealized they had been omitted — andat the very time when he knew doing so could mosthurt his chances with the California Bar. Second, the Committee claims “those fabricated articles remain in the public domain.” (Petition, p. 23.) As the articles are copyrighted andthusnotin the public domain, the applicant believes the Committee is referring to clarification of the public record. But that record is already unequivocal: Mr. Glass hasrepeatedly, publicly made clear his journalism is not to betrusted. a. Mr. Glass’s Initial Failure, in 1998, To Disclose The Eight Fabricated Articles To TNR Was Due to Severe EmotionalDistress In 1998,just three weeks after Mr. Glass was very publicly fired from journalism, TNRsent Mr. Glass’s counsel, Gerson Zweifach, a list of articles TNR suspected were fabricated. TNR and Mr. Glass had enteredinto a joint defense agreement, at TNR’s suggestion. (VIII Tr.121.) Pursuant to that agreement, Mr. Glass was to review thelist, and confirm to Mr. Zweifach which articles he remembered as containing fabrications. Mr. Zweifach would then communicate the results to TNVR’s counsel. (VII Tr. 121:6-9, 102:10-13; Hf Tr. 77:2-12, 79:23-80:3; V Tr. 202:7-16.) TNR required a responsebythe close of business the next day. (VI Tr. 164-1 1, 18:7-14.) Mr. Glass confirmedthat 23 ofthe articles on the list — the vast majority of the suspectedarticles — contained fabrications. He believed he hadidentified every single sucharticle on the list. However, at the time, the 25-year-old Mr. Glass was under severe emotionaldistress and contemplating suicide, and due to his emotionalstate, he inadvertently failed to identify four ofthe articles on the list as having been fabricated. Mr.Glass described his life at the time as like having “fallen off of a cliff’ and then beinghit by a “tsunami.” (V Tr. 191:18-24.) Hefelt “like the entire world knew who[he] was” and he was ashamed. (V Tr. 194:6.) He was “sleep-deprived” and “constantly scared.” (V Tr. 195:23-24.) He received “endless phonecalls, wanting interviews, mocking me, leaving nasty messages,” and hadto turn offthe car radio when “people were calling in to argue about me.” (V Tr. 194:8-10, 22-23.) He received notes in his Georgetown mailboxthat said things like “liar.” (V Tr. 195:4.) He did his grocery shoppingat night, to avoid seeing people. (V Tr. 197:2-7.) Strangers who read about Mr. Glass approached him; “overwhelmingly”the interactions “were hostile” and “threatening-feeling.” (V Tr. 198:9-10.) 38 Mr. Glass consideredsuicide, telling his parents “how the world wouldbebetter without me....” (V Tr. 184:20-22.) “Atthat point, I was neversleeping,orvery little, and that night was particularly bad. I was experiencing night terrors. I was trying to drink caffeinated beverages[so as] notto fall asleep, because, when I would fall asleep, I would re-experiencethe entirefiring....*** “T would relive the wholefiring, like, in my mind;-and I would wake up — I was sleepwalking again, which I had doneas a child, which I only knew because I would wakeupin places other than where I’d fallen asleep. I would have cold sweats. “So I hated both being awake andbeing asleep, but I was neverreally sleeping, and so [the night before meeting Mr. Zweifach] wasa particularly bad night. I didn’t go to sleep. I was upset. I wascrying...” (VI Tr. 16:23-17:13.) Three other witnessestestified to Mr. Glass’s distress during that period. Mr. Peretz, TNR’s editor-in-chief, testified Mr. Glass was “desolated.” (Ii Tr. 136:15.) Mr. Glass’s friend Crispin Rigbytestified, “Mr. Glass lookedlike he had trouble articulating his words, he physically shook, he cried, and he hadgreatdifficulty focusing. I was exceedingly concerned for Mr. Glass’s mental health.” (Exhibit “E” at 4 8.) Ms. Hilden — prior to actually meeting Mr. Glass — happenedto see Mr. Glassat this time. Shetestified: “[W]hen I was working at Williams and Connolly, in D.C., I worked for a partner named Gerson Zweifachpretty frequently, and although I did not represent [Mr. Glass] at all, Gerson represented Steve. 39 “So one day I was goingin to get Gerson to sign somethingin hisoffice, and J noticed Steve wassitting in his office, and I did not know Steve,butI recognized him because ofall the media coverage, and I looked at him, and I just went, ‘My God. This personis like the most depressed person that I’ve ever seen.’ “The Court: Depressed? “[Ms. Hilden:] Depressed, yes, just depressed and devastated, and I remember commenting onit to Gerson later, and just saying, ‘My God. That guyis just destroyed by, you know, what’s going on.’” (IV Tr. 96:12- 97:2.) The following morning, Mr. Glass appeared at Mr. Zweifach’s office to review the list of fabrications, but was overwhelmed. (VI Tr. 17:25.) What was supposedto be a “very quick” meeting took “mostofthe day” because ofMr. Glass’s fragile emotional state. (VI Tr. 17:23, 18:18.): “Atfirst we met in [Mr. Zweifach’s] office, because I think he thought I’d just kind of sit across the desk from him and we’d go throughthislist of. stories, I’d identify what was fabricated, and this would be very quick, butit wasnot possible. I was clearly — I was incapable, basically of doing it whenI arrived.... I was not able to focus. My eyes were blurry from crying. 662k a ok “I couldn’t evenreally open the list. I couldn’t, like, look throughit. I couldn’t handle it. I was shaking. Andso he sent me to a conference room for a while. Then he would periodically check in on me, and I was not focusing.... And he told me, ‘Can you kind ofpretendthat this is somebody else, so as we canget through this?’ Andthat helpeda little bit, but not much.... I was a mess, and I could barely — I was a wreck.” (VI Tr. 18:15- 19:18.) 40 “***But for the fact that attorneys were involved, there wouldultimately have never — well, not never, but, at the time, there would not have been any kind of working or cooperation. I wasnotable to focus.***”(VI Tr. 18:20-24.) Over the course of the meeting with Mr. Zweifach, Mr. Glass confirmed that 23 articles on the list contained fabrications; they were subsequently identified in a correction published in TVR. Betweenthis correction and a prior correction, TNR had now, with Mr. Glass’s cooperation, publicly identified 27 ofhis articles as containing fabrications. (II Tr. 89:11-17.) Mr.Glasstestified that, whenheleft the meeting with Mr. Zweifach: “I believed I fully cooperated. It was a punishinganddifficult experience. I was very upset, and I believed that I had answeredthe questionstruthfully that were put to me.” (VI Tr. 24:25-25:2.) Mr. Glass’s belief he had cooperated is confirmedbythe fact that, later that same day, he wrote a letter to Mr. Lane and Mr.Peretz apologizing for the fabrications, stating he wasseeing a psychiatrist, and offering ongoing cooperation. (II Tr. 75:25-76:4; VII Tr. 107:18-110:9.) Mr. Glass wrote that he had “just returned from my lawyer’s office” and “asked [Mr. Zweifach] to cooperate with TNR in its upcominganalysis ofmy stories.” (Exhibit 18) Mr. Glass wasso distressedat the time that his motherhad to assist him in writing the letter. (VII Tr. 113:13-16.) Mr.Peretz is notcritical of Mr. Glassfor failing to identify the additional fabrications, because he observed Mr. Glass’s mentalstate: 4] “***7 knew that Steve was desolated, and his contrition was so obvious to me that I see no point in saying, ‘He left out this article’ or ‘Heleft out this mistake or deliberate error....’” (II Tr. 136:14-17.) b. In 2009, Mr. Glass Came Forward To Identify Eight Additional TNR Articles Containing Fabrications To The Bar And To TNR’s Editor-in-Chief Years later, while working on his application to the California Bar, Mr. Glass prepareda list “ofall the fabrications...” (VI Tr. 28:8-9.) In so doing, Mr. Glass: “...did an exhaustive reading ofall ofmy pieces, and determinedthat, and came to realize that the listing of TNR was not complete.***” (VI Tr. 28:10-13.)° Specifically, Mr. Glassrealized that eight articles that had not appeared in TNR’s corrections contained fabrications. Four ofthe eight had been on TNR’s June 1998 list of suspected fabrications, but were not included in the magazine’s published corrections. (VII Tr. 105:24-106:10.) The other four were apparently not suspected by TNR to have been fabricated, and thus also were not on thelist of articles Mr. Glass reviewed in Mr. Zweifach’s office. (VII Tr. 104:5-7.) ° After Mr. Glass wasfired, hetestified, he “barely read” TNR, as it was too “painful.” (VI Tr. 27:12, 19) While he was aware that the corrections identifying his fabrications had been published, he did not read them. (VI Tr. 27:16-20) 42 Withrespectto the first four articles — which were on JNR’s suspected-fabrication list, but were not confirmed by Mr. Glass as fabricated: “I don’t remember exactly what happened.... I must not have affirmed those as having been fabricated. They’re the three last stories on the list [of suspected fabrications]. I do know that I was trying to get out, and hatingit, and crying andstuff, and so, piecing it together, that probably had a role in what wasgoingon....” (VI Tr. 21:21-22:2.) “I don’t remember whatI did, but I take ownership for havingfailed to, becauseclearly, I must not have. I just remember being a mess,and I don’t remember exactly — I knowthreeare the last three [on the June 1998list], but in no way do —I simply don’t have a clear memory ofwhy that happened,but, obviously, that’s my responsibility and my fault. (VI Tr. 24:6-21; 106:24-107:8.) The Hearing Judge reviewed the text of these fourarticles and foundthat “none... contained major fabrications, but rather involvedisolated fabricated facts.” (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 16, fn. 14.) This may explain why a distraught Mr. Glass did not identify these articles as fabricated. With respect to the other four articles, Mr. Glasstestified that in June 1998, when he wasin a distraught state of mind and reviewing TNR’s list of suspected fabrications, he “did not realize that there were [an additional] four articles that contained fabrications that were not onthelist.” (VII Tr. 104:5-7) The Committee suggests the omission of these articles was intentional, but as Professor Cohen, who has published in TNR, pointed 6 During his review, Mr. Glass did not have access to a computer, nor did he have a masterlist ofall his articles. (VI Tr. 21:2-3) He only had TNR’s list of suspected articles. 43 out, “***It is highly implausible that [Mr. Glass] would disclose all the fabricationsthat he engaged in, and then concealjust a few of them.”(II Tr. 197:2-7.) c. When Mr. Glass Realized TNR’s Corrections Were Incomplete, He Informed Both the Bar and 7NR’s Top Editor When Mr.Glass realized that TNR’s corrections did not identify all of the articles he had fabricated, he promptly informed the California Barofthe existence ofthe additional eight fabricated articles, despite knowing this admission could hurt his application. Mr.Glass also informed Mr.Peretz, the magazine’s top editor, of the additional fabricatedarticles. Given the large number offabrications to which Mr. Glass admitted in 1998, Mr. Peretz testified that he found the presence of the additional fabrications “not material” and “irrelevant” and believed no additional correction was warranted. (IX. Tr. 200:14- 17.) Mr. Peretz testified that, in his opinion, “The question whether Steve fabricated 36 articles or 41 or 29 is not material.” (II Tr. 166:12-16.) Mr. Peretz added: “...[A]s the ownerof the magazine, I knew that Steve was desolated, and his contrition wasso obviousto methat I see no point in saying, ‘Heleft out this article’ or ‘He left out this mistake or deliberate error’....” (iI Tr. 136:14-17.) The Court has reasoned similarly in two previous cases. In Lubetzky v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 308, 318, the applicant failed to identify two lawsuits in which he had been involved. The Court found the omissions “not morally significant,” Jd. at 319, as 44 the applicanthad disclosed enough to demonstratehislitigiousness. Likewise, in Hallinan, supra, 65 Cal.2d 447, the Court was unconcernedthat the applicant had failed to mention onearrest and that he was a nominalparty in a will contest. “In view ofall the admitted arrests,” the Court said, “petitioner’s nondisclosure of these tworelatively unimportant matters could not reasonably have been motivated by the belief that disclosure would harm his cause.” /d. at 473. d. Mr. Glass Has Publicly Made It Clear That His Journalism Cannot Be Relied Upon Mr.Glass has continuously and publicly emphasized that his journalism is replete with fabrications andis not to be relied upon. On 60 Minutes, Mr. Glass apologized for the entirety of his career in journalism. (Exhibit 1, pp. 398-401; Exhibit 35.) Accordingly, when the Committee asked Mr. Peretz whether he felt TVR was “duty-bound” to inform readersthat those additional eight articles were false, he testified “No.” (IE Tr. 166:19-167:8.) Melanie Thernstrom — a friend of Mr. Glass’s and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine — testified she, too, believes no additional public correction is necessary. When asked whether knowing that Mr. Glass did not identify every one ofhis fabricated articles had affected her opinion ofhis character, she replied: 45 “No, becauseI feellike it’s very sophistic.... [H]e said that he was liar, that the articles he wrote were a fraud at the time, and he’s apologized for all — for his entire journalistic career in those years, and so I don’t feel like — and he’s acknowledged many, many fabrications, articles that were wholly fabricated, articles that were partly fabricated. “So I think the idea of picking on — you know,wasit 37 he fabricated or was it 42? Like, I don’t see that that bears on his character or anything relevantto the present. I don’t think that any of these are genuine live issues with any import. Sok kk “Noneofthese articles that he wrote, even the onesthat are true, have any credibility whatsoever. I mean that’s the problem with onceyoustart making things up. So I feellike, for all intents and purposes,all of those articles are thoroughly discredited now.***” (III Tr. 37:15-38:18.) After reviewingthetrial testimony, the Review Departmentagreed: “***Glass has not asked us to excuse his failure to fully identify the fabrications [in 1998], and we observethat after 1998, it became increasingly less necessary to ferret out and retract every one of the publishedlies because Glass’s entire body of work has been so thoroughly and publicly discredited.” (Review Dept. Opinion,p. 6.) The Committee similarly criticizes Mr. Glass for not publicly identifying his fabrications in George, which nolongerexists, and in his onearticle for Harper’s. dx Tr. 41:16-18.) The evidenceattrial, infra at p. 47, wasthat in 1998 Mr. Glass directed his attorney, Mr. Zweifach, to “cooperate” and “communicate” with George and Harper’s to identify his fabrications, and “offer the same joint defense agreement”he had entered into with TNR and Rolling Stone. (VI Tr. 31:15-16; VII Tr. 94:20, 95:2-3.) 46 2. The Committee Mischaracterizes The Record Concerning Mr. Glass’s New York Bar Application The Committee’s petition and the dissenting opinion in the Review Department emphasized two statements Mr. Glass made to the New York Bar, one in 2002 and onein 2003. The Committee’s petition mischaracterizes the record. a. The Hearing Judge Found The “Credible Testimony” To Be That Mr. Glass “Worked Together” With His Counsel, To Identify The Fabrications And Contact The Magazines First, the Committee argues that one sentence in Mr. Glass’s multi-volume application to the New York bar, which was written in 2002, was“less than forthright.” (Petition, p. 29) Mr. Glass wrote: “I also workedwith all three magazines [TNR, Rolling Stone, and George] and other publications [Harper ’s and Policy Review] where | had written freelance articles to identify which facts were true and which werefalse in all of mystories, so that they could publish clarifications for their readers.” (Exhibit 1) The Hearing Department, after considering the evidence, foundas follows: “***The credible testimony at trial was that the applicant and his attorney worked togetheridentifying the articles that contained fabrications. Healso askedhis attorney to contact the other magazines involvedto sort out the fabrications.***” (Hearing Dept. Decision,p. 15; emphasis supplied) The Hearing Department's finding ofcredibility is to be “accorded significant weight on review.” (Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at 1096.) In June 1998, within one month of Mr. Glass’s firing, TVR provided Mr. Glass 47 with the list of articles suspected to contain fabrications, and Mr. Glass confirmedthat 23 articles on the list contained fabrications. (VI Tr. 16:19-22; II Tr. 89:14-15) The correction 7NR published after that meeting evidences that Mr. Glass “worked with” the magazine: “TNR has completedits investigation of the articles written by Stephen Glass, the former associate editor whom wedismissedfor fabricating three recent stories and parts of a fourth. We thoroughly rechecked 37 remaining pieces. As a final step, we sought comment from Glass, who madefurther admissions.” (Exhibit 1, p. 294, emphasis supplied.) Mr.Glass also “worked with” Rolling Stoneto identify his fabrications. They entered into a joint defense agreement, and Mr. Glass and Mr. Zweifach talked with the magazine aboutthe fabrications. (VI Tr. 31:12-13, 31:25-32:1.) In the August 6, 1998 issue, Rolling Stone published correction stating Mr. Glass had “acknowledge[d]”his fabrications. (Exhibit 1 at p. 392, IX Tr. 221:12-17, 222:9-223:8.) Mr. Glass also worked with Policy Review to identify his fabrications, in a phone conference with then-editor Adam Meyerson. (IX Tr. 45:11-46:9; VI Tr. 32:7-1 1.) Policy Review subsequently published a correction. (Exhibit 1 at pp. 389-390.) Finally, Mr. Glasstestified that he directed his attorney, Mr. Zweifach, to “cooperate” and “communicate” with George and Harper’s to identify his fabrications, 48 and to “offer [them] the same joint defense agreement.” (VI Tr. 31:15-16; VII Tr. 94:20, 95:2-3.)’ Mr. Glass believed his counsel had followed up on his direction to offer cooperation to George and Harper’s in identifying the fabrications. (IX Tr. 207:12-17, 212:12-17 (refreshing recollection with Mr. Zweifach’s bills for a phone call to both a Harper’s and a George editor), Furthermore, with respect to Harper’s, Mr. Glasstestified that he understoodthat Mr. Zweifach responded to a letter from Harper’s by confirming Mr. Glass’s fabrications. (IX Tr. 242:3-6.) Moreover, Mr. Glasstestified that he believed he had appropriately communicated with Harper ’s because the magazine’s top editor, Mr. Lapham, subsequently forgave him. (Exhibit “V”.) Mr.Glasstestified: “***T would not have believed that there wasstill an outstanding issue [with Harper’s] if Mr. Lapham accepted [the apology].” (IX Tr. 243:7-11.) The Hearing Department found Mr. Glass was “not dishonest in any way” when he testified he believed that Harper's accepted his apology. (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 17.) ’ Corroborating Mr. Glass’s testimony, was deposition testimony Mr. Glass provided in 1999, stating he had previously instructed Mr. Zweifach to offer his cooperation with all of the publications. (Exhibit 1, Vol. I, p. 867.) Mr. Zweifach was present at the 1999 deposition; had he somehownot previously understood Mr. Glass’s direction, it would have beenclarified. (/d.) 49 The Review Departmentfound: “Glass’s statement aboutthe level of his assistance in identifying fabricated articles was not completely accurate. Ashe clarified atthetrial below, Glass and his attorney worked together to identify the articles that contained fabrications, and then Glassleft it to his attorney to contact the various affected publishers because Glass wasfar too emotionally distraught to do so himself. The State Bar did not prove whether Glass’s attorney failed to ‘work with’ someofthe publishers and neither did Glass establish that his attorney had completedthe task as requested. “Nevertheless, in view of the overwhelming evidence of Glass’s reform and rehabilitation, we are unwilling to deny Glass’s application based onthis single statement, which was madenineyears ago when Glass wasstill coming to terms with his personal and professionalfailures. Perfection is not required in these proceedings.***” (Review Dept. Opinion,p. 16.) The Hearing Departmentlikewise found, “[T}his court concludesthat this perhaps overly-broad statement was made through inadvertence on applicant’s part.” (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 16.) b. Mr. Glass Appropriately Complied With The New York Bar’s Request Second, the Committee argues that Mr. Glass was“less than forthright” in 2003 whenhe respondedto a request from the New York Barfora list of his articles containing potentially negative, false statements about actual personsor entities. (Petition, p. 30.) Mr. Glass provided the New York Barwith a seven-page, single-spacedlist identifying and discussing 20 such articles. (Exhibit 1, p. 238-244) The Committee argues that one additional article should have been included,fora total of 21. Mr. Glasstestified he did not include that article because it was a false statement 50 about an imaginary person, as opposedto a real person, and thus did not come within the New York Bar’s request, with which Mr. Glass carefully complied. (VIII Tr. 37:12-38:2; 135:24-25.) Yet Mr. Glassstill acknowledged the wrongnessofthe article, sending a letter of apology to the companyfor which he hadsaid thefictional person worked. (VII Tr. 137:5-6; VI 38:2-10.) The Committee, in passing, claims two otherarticles should have been included, for a total of 23. (Petition, p. 35.) But the Hearing Department found those twoarticles did not come within the subset requested by the New York Bar, as they did not cast the subjects in a negative light. (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 17.) Furthermore, Mr. Glass included a coverletter and a headerto his subsetlist of fabrications for the New York Bar, both of which confirmed the New York’s Bar’s specific request and noted that while the applicant “tried to be thorough and comprehensive in this submission,”there may be “an inadvertent omission...” (Exhibit 1, pp. 236, 238.) Finally, the Committee criticizes the applicant for not providing a completelisting of every fabricated article to the New York Bar. (Petition, p. 35.) But, the undisputed evidenceat trial — including a contemporaneousletter between Mr. Glass and the New York Bar — confirms the New York Bar requested only a subset of Mr. Glass’s fabrications. (Exhibit 1, p. 236.) Thelist itself re-confirmsthis limitation, in a paragraph Mr. Glass wroteat the top ofthe first page. (Exhibit 1, p. 238.) 51 Additionally, the Review Department noted: “Glass unhesitatingly testified at the NewYork hearing that he had fabricated between 30 and 40 articles...” and that thelist wasonly a response to the New York Bar’s request for a subset. (Review Dept. Opinion 3 p. 16.) Mr. Glass provided a completelist of all fabrications to the California Bar, as requested. 3. TNR Declined Mr. Glass’s Offer To Repay His Salary As Unnecessary And The Review Department Found Monetary Restitution Inapplicable The Committee’s focus on monetary restitution is an attempt to distract attention from the real issues — whether Mr. Glass presently has good character and has been rehabilitated, and whether he has made amendsthat are truly meaningful. As the Review Department explained: “Weconsider [the applicant’s] present character in light of his previous moral shortcomings. (/n re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 988), and weare at a loss to understand how monetary restitution would mitigate the reputational harm that Glass had caused. While monetary restitution can be a ‘legitimate and substantial factor’ in an overall showingofrehabilitation, it is most relevant where the misconduct has caused economic harm to a victim. (/d. at p. 989-990)” (Review Dept. Opinion,p. 14.) Notably, Mr. Peretz — the self-described “sole loss payor” of TNR for approximately 33 years — dismissed any notion that the magazine suffered meaningful economic harm because of Mr. Glass’s misconduct, testifying the costs were “not anything that shapes the universe...” (II Tr. 135:7-8; I Tr. 139:20-22.) 52 “***T actually think that the scandal reawakened people to the existence of The New Republic, and the movie® probably helped ourcirculation. I mean, I’m not proudofthat, but there it is.” (II Tr. 134:20-23.) Indeed, when Mr. Glass offered to repay his TNR salary, Mr. Peretz called the idea “outlandish.” (II Tr. 135:11; IX Tr. 41:4-6.) Mr. Peretz also dismissed any need for Mr. Glass to pay TNR’s legalbills. (II Tr. 135:22-25.) Among numerous other witnesses, Dr. Rosenthal, one of Mr. Glass’s psychiatrists, explained that the applicant made meaningful amends: “I think he hastried to makerestitution, and my understanding ofrestitution is that it’s not just a financial concept. It means to fix what’s been broken, and he has gone to significant lengths to either rebuild trust or to repair relationships.” (VIII Tr. 129:7-11.) The Review Department made similarfinding: “Glass has made considerable effort to redress the reputational harm suffered by his victims by repeatedly admitting publicly that his articles wereriddled with lies, such that his entire body of work andhis reputation as a journalist have been thoroughly discredited. In addition to these public admissions, Glass has sought to make amendsprivately to those he harmed by sending about 100 personalized apology letters.... We find that Glass’s efforts to mitigate the effects of his lies are more appropriately tailored to the reputational harm he caused than monetary restitution.***” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 14.) Finally, the Committee mischaracterizes the record in this regard,too, stating: “Applicant never made a formal offer to TNR and never offered to make amendsto the other magazines, their editors, or employees.” (Petition, p. 34.) This is simply incorrect. 8 Mr. Glass wasnot involved in any way with the film Shattered Glass, nor did he receive any compensation from the movie, nor was the movie an adaptation of his novel. (Hearing Dept. Decision,p. 24, fn. 24.) 53 Mr.Glass ultimately offered to repay his salary to Mr. Peretz, who wasthen the editor-in- chief of TNR.(Petition, p. 34; I Tr. 139:20-22.) Furthermore, Mr. Glass offered Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner“to do anything he thought to makethis correct...” (IX Tr. 41:11-12.) After accepting Mr. Glass’s apology, Rolling Stone rehired him to write for the magazine, apparently so that Mr. Glass could prove that he was capable of honest journalism. This evidences that Rolling Stone did not believe Mr. Glass owedrestitution. (IX Tr. 41:11-16.) Mr. Glass had a similar conversation with Policy Review, in which the editor conveyed that his apology was sufficient. (IX Tr. 45:14-15.) Moreover, Mr. Glass interpreted Mr. Lapham’s public forgivenessas an indication that his amends to Harper’s were sufficient. (IX Tr. 215:1-4.) In sum, the Hearing Judge, the Review Department, and numerouswitnesses found that Mr. Glass’s misconduct had to do with dishonesty and wasnot a financial matter as to which monetary restitution was required. 4, Mr. Glass’s Novel Is A “Cautionary Tale” That Was Written As Part Of His Therapy And Has Been Used In A University To Teach Ethics The Committee criticizes Mr. Glass for authoring a novel. Approximately 80 of the book’s pages, althoughfiction, are inspired by the applicant’s journalistic misconduct. The remaining 259 pages bear “no relationship” to the author’s misconduct and recount purely fictional events. (IX Tr. 191:9-22.) 54 Mr.Glasstestified he wrote the novel as a “cautionary tale” which imparts a positive morallesson. (LX Tr. 129:11.) At least one university, George Washington, has used it “to help educate young studentsin ethics.” (IX Tr. 147:20-23, 97:1-6.) The idea of the novel wasinitially suggested to Mr. Glass by his D.C.psychiatrist, Dr. Raphling. (Hearing Dept. Decision, p. 19, fin. 18; IX Tr. 94:2-8.) Attrial, the Committee’s conceded it was “established”that the novel was “a therapeutic, cathartic experience” for Mr. Glass. (IX Tr. 105:19-20.) The book’s gross earnings were approximately $190,000. Mr. Glass paid approximately 25% of that sum in agent’s fees, leaving $142,500 before taxes. Those earnings were the “principal way” Mr. Glass supported himself and constituted “virtually all” his income from August 2001 through October 2004. Mr. Glasstestified that he used this money notonly to support himself, but also to pay for his ongoing therapy, and for part of his legal expenses, which exceeded $50,000. (IX Tr. 85:19-25-87:15, 212:22.) 5. Mr. Glass Appeared On “60 Minutes” To Publicly Account For His Wrongdoing And To Apologize For His Entire Journalism Career The Committee asserts that Mr. Glass’s 2003 appearance on 60 Minutes wasself- serving. However,the record shows Mr. Glass appeared onthe program to publicly accountfor his wrongdoing. On the program, Mr. Glass did not minimize his misconduct, but apologizedfor his entire journalism career. (IX Tr. 86:18-21; Exhibit 1, p. 398; Exhibit 35.) Hestated 55 that, at the time of his fabrications, “My life was one very long processoflying and lying again, to figure out how to coverthoseother lies.” (Exhibit 1, p. 398.) The Review Department found that Mr. Glass did not make excuses: “***In the 60 Minutes interview, [Mr. Glass] recounted his history as a journalist and detailed his very public outing as a fraud. Glass admitted his conduct was wrong and acknowledged he had hurt co-workers, editors, family, friends, and readers.***” (Review Dept. Opinion, p.7.) Mr. Glasstestified that he wantedto: “***talk publicly about what I had done, and I wanted to makethat clear that I had lied, and makeit knownin a very public way, since what I had done wasvery public....***” (VI Tr. 83:1-6.) Had Mr. Glass’s appearance beenself-serving, he would have appeared on a program with a reputation for asking easy questions, not 60 Minutes. Mr. Glass testified it was “really important” to him that the “interview be with somebody who would ask me hard questions.” (VI Tr. 83:11-13.) 6. Mr. Glass Is Not Required To Re-Establish His Standing In The Journalism Community The Committee argues that Mr. Glass is required to re-establish his standing in the journalistic community, but fails to explain why. Moreover, the Committee itself has presented at least one witness, Mr. Bradley, whostated that the journalistic community would never accept Mr. Glass back (VIII Tr. 32:8-11.), and the Committeeitself acknowledgesit is “unlikely [Mr. Glass] would ever be hired again as a journalist.” (Review Dept. Opinion, p. 14.) The issue is not how certain communities might react to 56 Mr. Glass based upon his past misconduct, but whether the record proveshis rehabilitation. 7. The Allegation Of Racism Is Meritless Finally, the Committee strains to raise the issue of “racism,” apparently hoping for a reflexive reaction by this Court. It is absurd to believe that the liberal TNR or Harper’s would publish what the Committee purports to be racist material. Further, ZNR’s editor-in-chief, Mr. Peretz, referencinghis civil-rights credentials, testified the idea for the article “Taxis and the Meaning of Work,” which the Committee cites, was his own. Hetestified that the article itself was not “written in a racially-biased way. I mean, I think people who chargethatare really groveling.” (II Tr. 138:7-9; II Tr. 138:22-139:1.) As Mr.Glasstestified, his articles mocked groupsacross the political and racial spectrum, including white conservatives and Christians. (IX Tr. 187:8-188:1 .) Furthermore, as discussed, supra, Mr. Glass’s hundredsofhours ofpro bono service has included work for victims of race-based violence. Neither the Hearing Judge nor the Review Departmentaccordedthe allegation of racism any significance. 57 Ill. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Committee’s petition for review should be denied. DATED:September 25, 2011 DATED:September 27, 2011 Margolis & Margolis, LLP 5 afl 3 pip AA p LP Ae f i? i~* Ae Vy loses a Arthur L. Margols By: Cbhngto Susan L. Margélis Law Office of Michael A. Willemsen by [s/ Michael A. Willemsen Attorneys for Applicant, Stephen Randall Glass 58 WORD COUNTCERTIFICATE (Rules of Court, R. 8.504(d)(1) I, Susan Margolis, state as follows: 1. I am co-counsel for Applicant Stephen Randall Glass, respondentin this action. 2. I certify that the word count of the computer software program used to prepare this documentis 13,866 words, excludingthe table of contents, table of authorities, the cover, the signature blocks, and this word countcertificate. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 26, 2011, at Los Angeles, California. La Susan L. Margolis ’ 59 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Sew Keeceo _, State of California. My business address is [o&& Satire St HSSaTacsu cA 77/23 On September 2*; 2011, I placed a true copy of the following document: ANSWERTO PETITION FOR REVIEW in a sealed envelope, addressed as stated below. {X] I hand-served that envelope to the following addresses: Rachel Grunberg Office of General Counsel The State Bar of California 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Colin P. Wang Administrative Officer for the State Bar Court The State Bar of California 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 27+; 2011, at Ay 4 tre Seep , California. MAnkes NorouKw, C_ Print Name Signature