In re Glass
Supreme Court of California
316 P.3d 1199, 58 Cal.4th 500, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 87 (2014)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Stephen Randall Glass (plaintiff) worked as a journalist for a well-known magazine while attending law school at night. Glass attained notoriety when it came to light that he had concocted key facts and falsified sources in a number of published articles. When confronted with accusations of dishonesty, Glass undertook elaborate efforts to cover his tracks. In the midst of the ensuing controversy, Glass applied for licensure with the state bar of New York, but did not accurately disclose the full extent of his journalistic misconduct or his efforts to hinder discovery of his falsehoods. Glass withdrew his New York bar application after being informed that he would not pass moral character review. Several years later, while working as a law clerk, Glass applied for bar licensure in California. During California’s moral character review, Glass revealed omissions in his New York bar application and fabrications in other published articles that he had not previously identified. Glass’s application for professional licensure came before the Supreme Court of California.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
