When Liptak broke the story of Michael E. O’Neill’s plagiarism, it was barely a “2” on the yawn-o-meter.  After all, George Mason lawprof and Bush nominee for a federal judgeship had lifted substantial portions of other people’s scholarship and included them, without attribution, in at least four articles.  Sexy, right?

The assumption, after news of O’Neill’s deceit came out, was that he would fade quickly into the background and go hide under a rock somewhere on the George Mason campus, never to be heard from again.  This guy would be laughed out of a classroom, no less a courtroom.  Or so it seemed.

The WSJ Law Blog reports that O’Neill isn’t going quietly into the night.  Instead, O’Neill has announced that he:

will not withdraw his nomination because he fully disclosed the controversy to both White House officials and the FBI. “It wasn’t intentional. It was my fault. It was my mistake, and I have to own up to it.”

Well, that settles it, right?  Well, maybe not. 

Let us consider the pieces of the puzzle.  O’Neill will not withdraw his nomination because he “fully disclosed the controversy.”  So if you do wrong but later admit to it, you get to be a federal judge?  I have a number of clients who will be darned happy to hear that.  They could use a job.

O’Neill further asserts “it wasn’t intentional.”  So those “substantial portions” of unattributed writings from other guys snuck into his law review articles by accident?  Four times?  At least?  Oh baby, I’m loving the way this guy thinks.  “Yes, your honor, it was all a big accident, all 37 bullets.  Even after I reloaded.  Three times.”

Owning up to one’s mistakes is generally considered a good thing.  But it doesn’t necessarily wipe the slate clean immediately.  Usually, there’s a consequence to doing bad things.  In this instance, the consequence appears to be that O’Neill will be sentenced to life.  As a federal judge.  Harsh.

The potential that Michael O’Neill will wear the robes offers some fascinating possibilities.  Consider the drug dealer whose defense is that he was really bad at chemistry and hence didn’t realize that the substance he was selling was a “precursor”.  Or the guy who was really bad at math and couldn’t convert pounds to kilograms.  Dismissed!  After all, it was just a mistake.  It wasn’t intentional.  Blame the school system.

And if only he was the judge presiding over Martha Stewart’s case, convicted for proclaiming her innocence.  Certainly he would be sympathetic, knowing how he similarly erred, four times, by unintentionally plagiarizing the work of others.  It can happen, you know.  After all, who can remember who wrote what.  Or who said what.  Same sort of thing.

No one expects perfection of all persons nominated for the federal bench.  Beyond the fact that judges are human, we all have done things that, whether at the time or in retrospect, reflect poor choices.  But this one is awfully clear, awfully significant and goes to the heart of integrity.  If he was a testifying defendant, this would come in to impeach his veracity.  That’s usually a pretty good reason not to make someone a federal judge.

There’s only one real question remaining:  Will the Dean of George Mason Law School take him back as a lawprof, knowing what he’s done?  Dan Polsby, it’s your turn to put your school’s integrity on the line.