"In re Glass on Admission" is certainly not the most important case ever to be decided by the California Supreme Court.

However, it will be one of the most watched, and not merely in California, having already germinated a bumper crop of intense reportage and sharply worded punditry, because it involves the nation's most infamous case of journalistic fraud and intensifies the often adversarial relationship between journalists and lawyers.

Stephen Glass, a 20-something journalist, produced dozens of sensational articles for prestigious national magazines during the 1990s and was considered to be a budding industry superstar when it was discovered that he had fabricated almost everything he wrote and had gone to elaborate lengths to cover up his deception.

Although he was not charged with any crime, his journalistic career was, of course, kaput. He wrote a book about it and was the subject of a movie, "Shattered Glass."

Even before he was outed as a fraud, however, Glass had already begun to attend Georgetown Law School. And after his bid to become a licensed lawyer in New York was rejected, he moved to Southern California, began clerking for a Beverly Hills law firm, passed the California bar exam and applied for admission to the California bar in 2007.

The State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners turned Glass down, but he appealed to the independent State Bar Court, which ruled 2-1 in his favor, citing "overwhelming evidence of Glass' reform and rehabilitation" and an impressive list of character witnesses, including the former editor of the New Republic magazine, which had published many of Glass' fabrications.

The bar examiners, however, appealed. The issue moved to the state Supreme Court, which agreed to review Glass' application.

The appeal has generated a storm of controversy within journalistic and legal circles centering on the concept of redemption, and both professions appear to be divided over whether Glass, having committed the ultimate sin of journalistic malfeasance, should be granted another opportunity in another field of endeavor.

His critics say that Glass' public apologies have been insufficient, and that he should have shown more remorse – perhaps by donating proceeds of his book to some appropriate charity.

His supporters cite his pro bono legal work on behalf of the poor, point out that he was never charged with a crime, and contend that even a felon is assumed by society to be worthy of a second or even third chance.

For what it's worth, this journalist sides with Glass in his efforts to become a lawyer, even though his fraudulent articles gave our profession a very black eye, confirming for many their low opinions about what we do.

He's already paid a heavy price for his secular sins and deserves a chance to redeem himself.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters Follow him on Twitter @WaltersBee.

• Read more articles by Dan Walters