I have to say that Ross might be getting himself into trouble if this is his evidence. The article says Gordo did nothing wrong and was erroneously blamed. I'm no fan of Gordo but facts still matter.
It's not that simple.
The article starts out be describing how:
1) back in 2008 Lehman Brothers issued a public apology for having a 5-person team issue a 60-page report that turned out to be plagiarized,
2) at about the same time 1 of these team-members (namely Gordon Johnson) left Lehman Brothers to instead work for a much smaller company, and
3) Gordon Johnson had in fact been fired for being responsible for the plagiarism.
The article's author then goes on to explain that after a series of phone conversations with Gordon Johnson, the author came to doubt that the allegation was worth the trouble that Johnson claimed he was consequently having...
So point 3) is disputed by Johnson - and the article's author has retracted their initial conclusion regarding 3), based on this dispute by Johnson.
That's really not much clearing of a name.
Further, points 1) + 2) are _not_ disputed, nor is an alternative explanation given for how or by whom the plagiarized report was produced.
So I think there is every reason to look into whether Gordon Johnson has the legally required credentials to provide investing advice to the public.