The Saga Of Stephen Glass: A Guest Post Morality Tale From Eric Starkman

Forced to resign in disgrace. A pariah in your chosen field. Fines, sanctions, and humiliating public scrutiny.

Eric Starkman leads Starkman, a public relations firm that focuses on financial services, technology, healthcare, and professional services. Starkman writes today of Stephen Glass, a disgraced journalist. Glass has sought and, he believes, achieved redemption for his offenses but he’s still struggling to convince some.  The New York Times reports he was recently denied admission to the California bar.

In 1998, Stephen Glass was all but banished from the profession of journalism. On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled that he was not welcome as a lawyer, either.

I often write about the members of the accounting profession that break the rules and end up sanctioned, fined, sometimes out of a job and, more often lately, in jail. My recommendations for a public “registry” of audit professionals where academic and career histories as well as records of sanctions, litigation, bars and fines could be easily researched by the public has been controversial.

Is it fair to “tar and feather” auditors and CPAs when they are sued or only when they are convicted of crimes? How much time must pass before they can get on with their lives?

Do mature professionals and CPAs who are inside traders like Tom Flanagan, Scott London and now the latest, Steven M. Dombrowski, the Chief Audit Executive of Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, deserve a second chance as CPAs once they’ve paid their fines and served their time? How about the young professionals who backdate workpapers and back down on concerns when partners say, “We’re done here!” Should we ever trust them again to audit public companies, represent us in court or manage our portfolio?

You decide. I’d like to hear your thoughts in the comments.


In 1998, Stephen Glass was a hotshot, high-profile, twenty-something journalist writing features for The New Republic, Rolling Stone, Harper’s, and other respected publications. He was also, as it turned out, a serial fabricator. Many of the people and events he chronicled were exposed as imaginary, forcing Glass to resign in disgrace. He deservedly became a pariah in his chosen field, and his tale of relentless transgressions was turned into “Shattered Glass,” a movie I highly recommend.

Even as a reporter, Glass had his sights set on pursuing a legal education (he took night classes while writing for The New Republic). He graduated with a law degree from Georgetown University Law School in 2000 and passed the bar exams in New York and California. The bars of both states declared him morally unfit to practice law, however, citing his journalism dishonesty. A California court overturned the decision of that state’s bar association on the grounds that Glass had shown sufficient rehabilitation, but the California Supreme Court this week overturned the lower court ruling. Glass’ attempts at rehabilitation “seem to have been directed primarily at advancing his own well-being rather than returning something to the community,” the court ruled in its 33-page decision.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who has written on legal and judicial ethics, framed the underlying issue to Julie Bosman of The New York Times: “The question is, are we prepared to say as lawyers that a man who is no longer considered moral enough to be a journalist is moral enough to be a lawyer? If people flame out in journalism because of dishonesty, is the law open to them? I think the answer is no.” I was bemused by the haughty comment, given a Gallup poll last December that measured how Americans perceive the honesty and ethical standards of various professions; reporters and lawyers were ranked almost identically at the bottom of the list.

The sad truth is that Glass’ editorial deceptions were anything but unique. There is an abundance of other reporters who similarly crossed the line between journalism and creative writing. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Jay Foreman, Patricia Smith…Glass is certainly not the only clown in that shame parade. Journalism also is rife with high-profile individuals who have caused, or have been implicated, in matters causing far greater harm to the “community” than Glass’ misdeeds.

Indeed, Martin Peretz, who owned and managed The New Republic when Glass worked there, testified at a bar hearing that Glass’ fabrications caused “minimal” damage to the magazine. He also testified that he wouldn’t rule out hiring Glass again as a journalist. And – get this – the former Harvard professor said that in his experience, the “most brilliant students plagiarize.” Peretz would go so far as to tell the bar committee’s counsel, “I actually find your pursuing (Glass) an act of stalking.”

As I’ve written before, plagiarism and fabrication are quite common in journalism. But the penalties for getting caught vary dramatically, depending on a journalist’s place on the industry food chain. Fareed Zakaria, a CNN host and Time columnist, was suspended for only a month after being caught lifting entire passages from a New Yorker article.  Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist, didn’t suffer any consequences when it was revealed that she lifted 40 words verbatim previously published by a blogger.  Admittedly, Glass’ dishonesty was far more pervasive, but lesser-known journalists than Zakaria and Dowd weren’t treated as charitably when caught committing comparably small acts of plagiarism.

With its eroded standards for integrity and honesty, journalism today has emerged as quite the welcoming landing ground for people previously involved in egregious acts of wrongdoing, which is rather ironic given that its Glass’ unethical behavior as a journalist that has him barred from another profession today.

One of the most influential online business news publishers today is former Merrill Lynch technology analyst Henry Blodget, who was permanently banned from the securities industry in 2003 for issuing positive ratings on technology stocks he was privately deriding in email messages.  Countless investors lost millions of dollars trusting Blodget’s recommendations, but that didn’t stop New York magazine from publishing a cover story featuring his positive take on Facebook in advance of that company’s initial public offering. Even New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who has been at the forefront of journalists calling for the prosecution of executives responsible for the 2008 crisis, declared that Blodget should be given a break.

Then there is former New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer, whose moral transgressions are so well known they don’t even require a link.  Spitzer’s “rehabilitation” was becoming a co-host on a CNN interview show; his counsel and insights are still regularly sought by mainstream journalists. Worth noting:  Spitzer remains a member in good standing of the New York bar; apparently the association has no moral qualms about its members cavorting with prostitutes.

Steven Rattner, a former investment banker accused by the SEC of participating in a “widespread kickback scheme to obtain investments from New York’s largest pension fund, is a regular contributor to the New York Times, which perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise given that he is reportedly close friends with the newspaper’s chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.  Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin is one of Rattner’s biggest apologists.

But let’s go back to Glass. According to the California Supreme Court decision, Glass has undergone years of intensive psychoanalysis, garnered recommendations from some highly respected jurists such as Georgetown law professor Susan Low Bloch and Stephen B. Cohen, various judges, and his boss Paul S. Zuckerman, who became a personal injury lawyer after becoming disenchanted representing insurance companies. Glass also does extensive work with the homeless, and two psychiatrists have vouched for his character and his improved ability to manage stress.

There is compelling evidence suggesting that Glass is not the person he was some 15 years ago and that he has taken meaningful steps to lead an honest and ethical life.  Yet the New York State and California bars still deem him not worthy to practice law, a decision that seems driven by optics and PR. That a respected authority on “legal ethics” has no qualms about denying someone a well-earned legal career to feed a false sense of self-righteousness may explain why lawyers, along with journalists, are both held in such low regard.

Eric Starkman is co-founder of Starkman and its President. His three-decade-plus career in journalism, public relations, and advertising has given him unique perspectives and keen insights on the business challenges these professions face and the opportunities awaiting them in today’s integrated marketing world.

Eric is actively involved in virtually all of the firm’s accounts and closely monitors all client-related activities. Prior to founding STARKMAN, he was a senior vice president at The MWW Group, where he oversaw corporate communications and investor relations, and Morgen-Walke Associates, where he was responsible for the firm’s corporate communications practice.

Prior to entering public relations, Eric was an editor and reporter at major newspapers in the U.S. and Canada, including The Wall Street Journal, American Banker, The Detroit News, The Toronto Star, and The (Montreal) Gazette. Earlier, he worked as a copywriter at W.B. Doner in Michigan. Eric is cited in the acknowledgements of four books written by leading financial journalists. He holds a Master’s degree in Journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor’s degree from Toronto’s York University.

Starkman has no connection to Glass or any of his attorneys.

2 replies
  1. GRH
    GRH says:

    There actually is a public website called CPAVerify. It is maintained by NASBA. It includes disciplinary sanctions meted out by the State Boards. It is open to the public and free of charge. The website – reflects each state that an individual CPA is licensed in and any sanctions against them.

    There are currently about 40 states that are submitting data but it is expected that eventually all will contribute. It may not have all of what you are looking Francine but it is a start.

  2. Francine
    Francine says:


    Thanks for that. I will check it out. Of course, the completeness of the data depends on how often and how quickly the states inflict disciplinary proceedings. If you ask Carl Olson of, it’s rare.


Comments are closed.