“Stephen Randall Glass made himself infamous as a dishonest journalist by fabricating material for more than 40 articles for The New Republic magazine and other publications.” Thus starts the California Supreme Court’s Jan. 27 decision that declined to admit Glass to the practice of law, based on the court’s assessment of Glass’ moral fitness. The decision presents an opportunity to ask questions about the nature of moral character, fitness to practice law, and the relationship of bar admission as a gatekeeping process to the rest of the law governing lawyers.
To gain admission to the bar, a person must be of “good moral character” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6060(b), 6062(a)(2)), which state bar rules define as a specific set of “qualities,” including honesty, obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others. The bar admission process screens for persons whose past conduct is inconsistent with these moral traits. As the California Supreme Court reiterated in Glass’ case: “Persons of good character … do not commit acts or crimes involving moral turpitude—a concept that embraces a wide range of deceitful and depraved behavior.” The court found that Mr. Glass’ deceptions as a journalist, while he was in law school, suggested a dishonest character.
