Character & Fitness Fail for Law Graduate With ‘No Plan’ To Pay Off His Debts
abovethelaw.comFor people who don't understand, they are denying him admission based on his decision to stay on at the public defender instead of quiting and finding likely nonexistent higher paying work to service his exorbitant albeit average student loan debt. This is completely unacceptable micromanaging by the Ohio Supreme Court here and if I were the guy I would keep fighting this. Character and fitness deals merely with a person's honesty and likelihood of not abusing the legal system; not his personal decisions regarding his personal finances that are in no way unusual for a law school graduate. Apparently the members of the OSC graduated 40 years ago when law school tuition was $400/yr. This case is ridiculous; there must be thousands of people in his exact position who passed readily.
From the article it seems that he's made no payment on his loan at all, even though he had a job and no substantial outgoings, but rather defaulted. He tried to declare bankruptcy to clear his loan rather than trying to pay it off.
That is an attempt to abuse the legal system.
I don't understand your comment. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
They cannot. He was trying to anyways. Quoting the article which is quoting the court:
The applicant testified that during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding, the payments on his student loan obligation would be greatly reduced. ... the panel observed that the only debt that could be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding would be the applicant’s $16,500 in consumer debt, as the applicant’s $170,000 in student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy.
> they are denying him admission based on his decision to stay on at the public defender instead of quiting and finding likely nonexistent higher paying work to service his exorbitant albeit average student loan debt.
That's incorrect. It's because he's not...
"seeking full-time employment, which he acknowledges would give him a better opportunity to pay his obligations and possibly qualify him for an additional deferment of his student-loan obligation."
So, he admits that he could do a better job at paying his obligations and could also not default on his loan obligations. In other words...
He has already admitted that he has chosen not to work to pay back his loans.
That isn't illegal or immoral.
I would say it's immoral to ignore your debt obligations, yes. He went through a program that cost a lot of money, and which he promised to pay for over time. He's not a victim here. One can't always choose to do whatever they prefer, especially when in debt to others.
There are many startup lawyers who bill >$400/hour, and I'm sure even the lowest paid lawyers who aren't public defenders make a fairly respectable salary. Paying off 150k of student debt on the kinds of timelines those things are usually on isn't outrageous.
But the catch 22 is that he can't work as a lawyer until he passes the bar...
My understanding of the story was that he was not going to be able to pass the bar because of his plans to try and get out of his debt by ways other than paying it back, even though he assumed he would pass the bar? Might be wrong, it was a bit hard to dig through the outraged writing.
But he can do other things that will help him pay of his debt until he passes the bar and then work as a lawyer.
Just because you go for school for something doesn't mean your guaranteed a job doing just that. You go to school to learn something. Usually you use that knowledge to advance your career (or start one). However, it's unfair to demand that just because you went to school to become a lawyer (or doctor, or whatever) that people must hire you into that position.
I agree with you 100%, but the comment to which I was responding seemed to be suggesting that he solve his debt problems by choosing to work as a more profitable sort of attorney (as opposed to a public defender). Until he passes the bar, those specific options will be closed to him.
Furthermore, the student isn't demanding that anybody hire him as an attorney- just that they grant him the legal credentials needed to be eligible to be hired as an attorney. There's a big difference.
Moral? No. He's has a contract with a financial company. Do you think they would behave morally if it meant giving up a dollar?
Borrowing money from a friend is a moral obligation. That's not the same as signing a contract with a financial company that has buildings full of lawyers and accountants looking for ways to screw you.
Unless you were coerced or the contract came into being in some other illegitimate way, you certainly have a moral obligation to fulfill any promise you make, contract or otherwise.
<Quick moral theory> To be moral, an action must preserve agency of those involved. When any action is performed, a reciprocal standard of action is established. (When I do something, I am willing that it is ok for you to do it to me.) If the action in question strips another person of their moral agency, the actor initiating the action is also accepting that it is permissible to be stripped of their own agency. This is where the contradiction exists. If we authorize the removal of anothers agency, then we are authorizing the removal of our own agency as well, and thus our ability to determine morality.
Cliffs Notes: If you screw someone over, you're authorizing others to screw you over. This perverts your sense of morality and you are no longer sufficiently able to decide morality.
> you certainly have a moral obligation to fulfill any promise you make
Morals are not absolute. Trying to apply your own expectations to others has the ability to cause a lot of grief in life.
Having paid off about $35k in student loans 2.5 years after I graduated, I do feel sympathy. It's easy to take on loans when it's just numbers on a piece of paper and one may not have earned much money up until that point. I only realised the hindrance of debt after taking it on. It can be a very tough lesson for people to learn if they have taken on too much and do not have prior experience on which to base their decisions.
There's a big confusion between morals and ethics, and they are often used interchangeably, which is what some of the posts to which you are replying have done.
This is definitely an ethical issue, which is (yes, yes, it's ironic) a cornerstone of Bar admission and the ability to practice law. Many disbarments are the result of ethical misconduct.
As an aside, he would also not be able to get a top secret security clearance, and would also be unlikely to get a secret clearance unless he had particularly amazing skills.
True, but the theory behind character and fitness tests is that if he is desperate for money with which to repay his debts, he may be more susceptible to coercion, blackmail, and criminal elements.
Ah, so the rich automatically have 'character and fitness' and are immune to corruption. Makes sense.
Not quite accurate. The problem was that the dude wasn't trying to seek full-time employment as a public defender.
Lawyers working for the public/non-profit sectors are granted loan forbearance of all student debt (including student debt not related to law school) after working full-time for 10 years for government agencies/non-profits/military. However, part-time work does not apply to this 10-year period. So, he would not have needed to change jobs, only his commitment to his current job.
The headline of the article is misleading. A guy who has a job as in public defender's office cannot promptly pay off his $400K in student loans due to the fact that his wages in the public defender's office are ~ $12/hr and he has a daughter. The Ohio Bar is attacking his "Character & Fitness" for not pursuing the kind of legal profession that would enable him to earn the kind of money that people who work for private law firms typically make, and ignores the intangible value he's "paying back" to society by working for a public defender.
What is the value of defending years of freedom for those people who wouldn't otherwise get legal representation, who might and spend 30 years in jail as an innocent person?
Its probably misleading cause you misread it. His loans are 170k, reasonable for law school graduate, and C&F has nothing to do with present or future career decisions.
Just to be clear, this isn't about the guy who offered to leave law school in his 5th semester in exchange for all his tuition back. This is an entirely different situation with an entirely different flavor of fail.
So, I guess the core conclusion of this article should be this:
What does not paying off student loans have to do with your ability to be a lawyer?
Someone with a large amount of debt is more likely, in the bar association's eyes, to seek illegal or questionably legal means of repaying it.
In this case, there's also the fact that the lawyer in question tried to file bankruptcy to lower his student loan payments, and to discharge some of his credit card debt. He also decided to take on a low-paying job as a public defender -- admirable, perhaps, but in his financial situation, irrational.
Not quite correct -- the linked blog does not accurately recount the facts of the case.
The guy chose NOT to take on a job as a public defender. He took a job as a part-time public defender, paid hourly wages, instead of pursuing available full time positions in the public defender's office.
The distinction is meaningful because the federal government repays all student loans for lawyers who work in the public/non-profit sectors for 10 years in full-time positions. This is known as loan forbearance. However, it does not apply to lawyers who take on part-time jobs.
Wow. That's doubly irrational.
I'm having trouble getting the facts through the indignant tone of the article... how much of this is "can't get a better job until I pass the bar, can't pass the bar until I pay off my debts (for which I need a better job)"?
He had a job as a stock broker and changed it for a $12 /hr part time job, which is what the board took issue with.
Honestly, it's neither that interesting nor that well written of an article.
The guy is deep in debt, but chose to keep a low-paying part-time job he [presumably] likes and to default on his loans instead of seeking options that would allow him to keep his obligations. And the complaint is that the guy should be free to do what makes him happy?!
Really? Is this a location issue? Because to me that sounds like the entitled moaning of a 10 year-old. The real world does not and should not care what YOU feel like doing. People are expected to behave like adults and to uphold their obligations. It's YOUR job to figure out a way to do what you love while successfully doing that - not everyone else's.
On the other hand, please correct me if I'm missing some important issue here.
I think it is also a significant indicator that he has $16,500 in credit card debt which he also can't pay off. That sounds to me more like he has serious problems around understanding his financial responsibilities than a law student who was required to rack up a large student loan but was doing their best to control it.
I am not convinced by some of the indignant tone of the article either - maybe they have no right to tell him what he should be doing with his life, but surely the whole point of the bar exam is that they have the right to decide if he's the kind of person they want to allow to pass the bar?
That's about $5,000/year while enrolled in law school. Is it _that_ bad?
Usually the financial aid office includes (extra) generous allowances for food, travel, and rent expenses that may be included in your student loans. Any credit card debt is on top of all of that.
He has a daughter and might be supporting his mother as well. My parents raised me and my sister off of student loans and credit cards while they were going to school. I think it is pretty common if you have a family to raise.
The article seemed to mention that he was not contributing to the family's expenses.
We obviously don't know whether his loans included those expenses, or not. Even if they did, we don't know if unexpected expenses came up; for instance, those related to having a daughter. Nor is it our business, or the Ohio Supreme Court's.
I've got to say I agree. In my last job, I trained a guy fresh out of law school to be a pizza delivery boy. From what I learned from him, law school is extremely expensive and you're in a tough spot after graduating and waiting for your bar exam, but he was still capable and determined to make enough money to keep himself afloat. Even as a pizza boy, he was making more than $12, and working more than 24-32 hours per week. I don't see any martyr here, and the entitled tone of the article doesn't help the argument either.
All other things aside, people actually had a huge amount of freedom when it came to job choice in soviet russia.
As an Arizona State Univ. grad myself, I can say that his undergrad alma mater probably doesn’t help his Character assessment!
… but as far as (fiscal) fitness, it’s known to be an exceptionally cheap school, so at least he tried to keep his undergrad debt to a minimum.
When companies find a way to escape their debts, it's "strategic." When individuals so much as contemplate it, it's morally reprehensible.
Not a bad dichotomy to set up if you run or own a large business.
Why is the C&F section even on the test? I thought you had to have no character to be a lawyer.