The L.A. Times runs another mostly glowing profile of ethically challenged civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman today, here. It just forgets to mention that he is ethically challenged.

There’s nothing in the story about the fact that Yagman has been disciplined for ethics violations such as misappropriation of funds, charging of unconscionable fees, and paying clients late. No mention of the case where Yagman was suspended for an ethical violation, and the State Bar “suggested that Yagman get counseling for his hostile behavior toward a client.”

Instead, he is treated as a civil rights hero. The sub-head of the story, which is a profile and not a “news” story, reads: “Stephen Yagman began the practice of holding leaders to account for the actions of police.” The story makes it sound as though Yagman’s only fault (if any) is that he arguably hauls the rich and powerful into court a little too often, and maybe makes a few too many outrageous statements about them. That all seems like the behavior of a scrappy civil rights lawyer. But he has many greater faults — they just aren’t being reported in this profile.

Ah, you say, but what is the relevance of Yagman’s checkered history to the story? The paper simply isn’t in the business of reprinting nasty stuff about people, time and time again, regardless of its relevance to the story . . . right?

Uh-huh.

Read this post of mine from June 2004. It pretty much rips that theory to shreds — and further explains my love for Stephen Yagman.