Legal Ethics
NY Won’t Admit Would-Be Lawyer Due to $430K in Unpaid Student Loans
Posted Apr 16, 2009 4:11 PM CST
By Martha Neil
A written opinion doesn't give his name. But an anonymous would-be New York lawyer with some $430,000 in delinquent student loans dating back to 1985 presumably knows who the New York appeals court is talking about.
In a decision (PDF) today, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court refuses to admit the individual it refers to as "applicant" on character and fitness grounds, even though he passed the state bar in February 2008.
The applicant said he intends in good faith to repay the loans, and attributed his delinquent status to the difficult economy and what the court describes as bad-faith negotiations by some loan servicers. However, he hasn't made "any substantial payments" during the time he has owed the money, and hasn't been "flexible" in negotating with lenders, the opinion states.
"Under all the circumstances herein, we conclude that applicant has not presently established the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law," the court writes.
Hat tip: Legal Profession Blog.
Related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: "Houston Lawyer Loses License Because of Failure to Pay Debts"
Updated at 10 p.m. to link to related ABAJournal.com post.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Apr 16, 2009 5:21 PM CST
That’s laying down the law! When he’s worked at the car wash long enough to pay off that $430,000 (and interest), he can ask again.
Flag this comment
that's kind of a lot, tho'
Apr 16, 2009 5:44 PM CST
My experience is that a lender’s idea of “negotiation” involves giving me the option of paying everything I owe plus 6000% inesterest right now by either check or debit card.
Flag this comment
J
Apr 16, 2009 5:48 PM CST
I wonder how many of those loans are ironically from law school. However, the existence of loans all the way back to 1985 seems rather odd and does create some degree of actual issues.
Flag this comment
Leonard Jackson
Apr 16, 2009 7:15 PM CST
Wow! He must have went to college, med school, business school and then law school to have that much in loans. Maybe he bought his house on student loans. Unfathomable.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 16, 2009 11:54 PM CST
Of course, for every loan, there is a lender. Some numbnuts extended all this credit despite the apparent absence of a repayment history.
Flag this comment
Debra Veoli
Apr 17, 2009 5:43 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Uh oh
Apr 17, 2009 7:17 AM CST
Yeah, the guy’s an idiot for running up THAT much in student loans, but this is what the future holds. A generation from now, most lawyers, doctors, PhD’s, etc - the professional classes - will owe so much in student loans that they will not have the ability to purchase homes, cars, or have families. The professions will eventually crater, and we’ll all have something else to do.
Flag this comment
C
Apr 17, 2009 7:37 AM CST
Ouch! 430K!?! So he/she was 300K down and decided, “hey, law school sounds fun?” Well, in the spirit of giving people adequate counsel just in case he/she’s reading this, maybe try joining the army and see if you can get some kind of loan forgiveness package? I actually don’t know. gl.
Flag this comment
JN
Apr 17, 2009 9:02 AM CST
“Not only am I going to go to law school, I’m going to go to 4 at the same time!”
Flag this comment
Anonymous
Apr 17, 2009 10:15 AM CST
So EVERY admitted lawyer is supposed to be a millionaire or slave away before EVER having a livelihood??? I had problems getting admitted over credit card debt from college spent on basic things like food & gas for my car, which was mostly used for me to go to work. No shopping sprees or vacations for ME, thanks. The amount in question was less than a tenth of what I owed in student loan debt & there was absolutely NO other reason to give me grief; I don’t even have a traffic ticket to my name.
My family is far from rich & I didn’t care to get married at 18 and throw away all my academic accomplishments to raise babies, like most of the girls in my high school did. I was trying to get admitted with my last pre-law school job in a law firm & 7 years of retail to my name; paying off anything wasn’t going to happen w/out a license or my resorting to illegal means considering I couldn’t get a loan w/out a job, no one will hire a JD & no one I could ask had that sort of $.
How about just banning people under a certain age from going to law school? How about just outright banning anyone making less than a certain income level from going, regardless of any personal aptitude at law school or the bar exam? I didn’t need the “character building” of being poor, thanks since I’ve faced more in my life than most lawyers ever will. I don’t find incurring credit card debt to ensure your own survival to be something within your control when that’s the only way you can survive & you’d paid those bills on time when you had college employment (in my case, a number of YEARS).
This person’s story is odd to me & he/she probably had a prior career to fall back on but I’m still livid about the notion of “you have to be rich to be a lawyer”; either impose open rules or shut up w/the “we welcome diversity” talk since that includes people who are NOT rich or even upper middle-class regardless of ethnic background.
Your general attitudes lead me to think you’d tell people from my background to not even bother trying in school or doing anything except being young, uneducated parents or killing themselves. Well I think people w/that attitude are spoiled babies who could never handle a real crisis & would be lousy public interest lawyers.
Flag this comment
James
Apr 17, 2009 10:32 AM CST
#10… we’re talking about $430k of debt here.
Also, it sounds like you had defaulted on some credit card debt. Generally bar associations don’t care how much debt you have only that you’re making payments and servicing it properly. There are ample ways to work out debt, but the fact of the matter is, a default reflects poorly not only on a person’s ability to manage their own financial affairs, but also on their attitude toward other people’s money.
Now before I hear a bunch of sob stories, bar admissions folks are trained to look at the whole picture. The fact that #10 rants like she does seems to indicate a “me-centered” attitude and an unwillingness to understand why the bar admissions people flagged her app in the first place. If someone presented my state with a bar app with $6,000 to $15,000 of debt currently in default, I’d ask some questions. I’d ask some more if they took the attitude that “ah it’s no big deal, I’ve got more than this in student loans.”
Back to the guy in the artcile $430,000 in student loans? He displays the same “me-centered” attitude. Rather than getting on a payment plan, he blames the loan companies for bad faith. According the opinion, he gave the bar admission people nothing to go on other than a vague statement that he “intended to pay them off sometime.” What were they supposed to do?
Flag this comment
Please stop whining about your debt
Apr 17, 2009 10:57 AM CST
#10 - you are what is ruining America. As #11 put it, your “me-centered” attitude is what got you in debt, not the fact that some of people around you came from different and perhaps more “fortunate” backgrounds. I too came from a poor family. I incurred tremendous law school debt just like most grads. My credit is superb not because I have money, but because I followed the advice of smart people everywhere: live at or below your means.
Listen, maybe no one ever told you, but credit cards are not free money. You actually have to pay those people back. Same with other debt. You complain about needing a head start on finances in order to make it as a lawyer. Your analysis misses the mark - you don’t need a head start: you just need to make better choices.
Spending money on gas when you have two good legs is not a “necessity.” Neither are the Poptarts and sodas most of us call “food.” Rice is cheap and you can walk to school/work.
Suck it up. You have no one to blame for your situation in life but yourself. The “me-centered” lack of personal accountability is EXACTLY what is ruining this fine country. I would have thought an educated person such as yourself would have seen that already.
Flag this comment
Shane
Apr 17, 2009 10:58 AM CST
$430,000 is a HUGE amount of student loan debt, but it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have the moral turpitude (to use a bar admission term) that other kinds of debt have for no repayment (credit card debt, bad checks, personal loans, etc…). The person above who says that the debtor probably purchased his home with the money should review the rules governing student loan proceeds. While some abuse is possible, most of this money goes to legitimate tutition expenses. Denying this applicant his bar license is great way to ensure his lenders will never get their money back.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Apr 17, 2009 11:06 AM CST
#11, #12 - Your comments sicken me. On the one hand you’re complaining about a “me first, self centered” behavioral plague, while looking down your noses at people who weren’t fortunate enough to be you!
Your linear, contradictory and childishly selfish views of humanity (wonder how you approach a client who needs your help…do you chastise them about “sob” stories?) make you the ideal adversary in court…I’d prefer a jury trial so everyone could see your ignorance on display.
Flag this comment
Please stop whining
Apr 17, 2009 12:21 PM CST
#14 - You misunderstand: some of us are angry because even though we’ve overcome similar personal adversity through great effort on our own accord, now we are expected (by you and other bleeding hearts) to “feel bad” for those who don’t want to put forth the same effort as we did. It is the lack of respect for doing the “right thing” and lack of personal accountability that we protest - not their “unfortunate” plight.
With respect to your challenge - challenge accepted: Let’s try our trial themes on the readership (jury) here.
Your client can be AIG, GM or the overextended single mother of 4 (you pick) and mine can be the American taxpayer at large.
You go with “sorry I made bad choices - life is hard” and I’ll go with “tired of cleaning up your mess - not going to do it again.”
Let the polling commence.
Flag this comment
apcTime
Apr 17, 2009 12:30 PM CST
I’d just like to make an observation here, as the posters don’t seem particularly mathematically inclined and as a result I believe that this discussion is focused on the wrong things (class warfare for one). Agreed that $430k is an outrageous sum, but consider that these loans date from 1985 and consider also that a balance of 30k, compounded monthly for 29 years at a rate of 9% (a competetive rate in the mid-80’s) would equal approximately $430k today. Not that we know 30k to be the exact amount, but it’s probably ballpark. Would anyone here consider 30k for a law degree to be “outrageous” or “too onerous” or anything else along those lines?
Now why this person had the debt unresolved for so long (one way or another) is an interesting question. And one could also wonder what the lender was thinking letting the debt persist for so long. Why not a bankruptcy much earlier?
In terms of personable responsibility, if you read the decision (link is above) you’ll see that the borrower never made “any substantial payment on the loan”... over a 30 year period. 30 years without making any kind of real payment… I think that speaks for itself.
Flag this comment
James
Apr 17, 2009 12:34 PM CST
Actually #14, it’s you and your ilk that are what’s wrong with America today. You assume that I’m rich becasue I pay my debts on time? I have law school debt like everyone else. In addition, you clearly didn’t read my post or if you did you’re too busy climbing your soapbox that you missed the point entirely. I’ll speak slowly so even you can understand “Barrister.”
The bar folks usually don’t care how much debt you’re carrying. (admittedly $430k is quite a bit and it does show a lack of judgment), but let’s assume that he only had $20k in debt. (and by debt I’m talking about debts that in default for not having been paid, not debt that he’s servicing and paying on persuant to a plan).
If an applicant came before the bar committee in my state with $20k of debt in default and took the position that he would pay it when he could despite having made no effort to do so and then proceeded to blame the companies who loaned him the money, I would HOPE that he would be denied admission. Here is someone who obviously can’t admit he has done something wrong and won’t take responsibility for his affairs. If that’s not a morality problem that reflects on one’s fitness to practice law than I don’t know what is.
I bet you’re the type of person who thinks that no blame should fall on greedy consumers who took out loans above and beyond what they could afford and bought houses on the basis of “this is the American dream and I’m entitled to mine.”
Well thanks to those people who even in foreclosure are running around trying to figure out how can I dump my house that’s worth less than my mortgage on the bank that lent me the money in the first place OR how can I get the taxpayers of this nation to fund my financial workout so I don’t have to file for bankruptcy. These people get to keep their houses while the job market goes in the toilet hard working people who pay their debts are RENTING the roof over their head.
So in conclusion “Barrister,” do me a favor and take your whiny bleeding heart diatribe and channel it to people who are the actual victims, not the people whose stupid choices put them where they are today.
Flag this comment
Michael
Apr 17, 2009 1:17 PM CST
It’s insane that we’ve spent trillions bailing out irresponsible, incompetent, and oftentimes dishonest bankers with no-strings-attached no-interest loans but that student loans and primary mortgages—the debt acquired by the little people—is not eligible for discharge. When society becomes so lopsided in its favoritism towards the wealthy things never seem to turn out well as we look back through history.
The founders of our country knew how important bankruptcy laws were: that’s why they wrote them into the Constitution. Not allowing people to start over again after lingering debt that’s almost 25 years old is what’s really immoral here.
Flag this comment
Seeking...
Apr 17, 2009 2:00 PM CST
I think the issue was that the loans were defaulted and no effort was shown to enter into any kind of repayment, not the size of the debt itself.
Student loans are generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Flag this comment
James
Apr 17, 2009 2:35 PM CST
Student loans shouldn’t be dischargeable in bankruptcy otherwise one of two things would happen.
(1) in the case of private lenders, they simply wouldn’t loan to most students.
(2) the federal loan system would collapse and it would cost taxpayers even more money.
The ease of availability of federal loans is directly related to the fact that they cannot be so easily discharged. However, the federal government is about the nicest and most flexible creditor one could hope for. They will work with you in just about any way possible. In addition there are loan forgiveness programs, as well as forebarance and differments. Better to have federal debt than private debt.
Flag this comment
patrician
Apr 18, 2009 1:24 PM CST
Class envy, populist rage. The rich deserve what is given to them from the hand of god.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Apr 18, 2009 1:49 PM CST
“James” where in my post did I expressly state a belief that you were rich? Your wealth (or possible lack thereof) was hardly the point of a word I typed. Are you always this sloppy and flippant?
Since knowledge seems to trigger an allergy for you, allow me to state the obvious…out of 10 people who are in a position to accurately “think” for me…you’re number 1,000.
Your rants litter these discussion boards far too often for you to be legit. Stop howling at the moon and pretend that you are capable of belonging to the human race because there’s little to no place for your level of ignorance and arrogance in my profession.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Apr 18, 2009 1:55 PM CST
#15…imagine that! Americans expecting us all to be in this together and to end the divisiveness and disparaging of those who for whatever reason don’t live by your dicta.
Wow.
My client could be anyone, because I actually paid attention in law school and realized that what I do is a JOB, and I have a duty in exchange for the privilege of practicing law to represent ANY client that I can, regardless of the cartoonish way the media tries to size things up for simpletons to digest.
I don’t have to go with your poorly (if at all) thought out argument, I can actually present a cogent, winning argument…then again that IS what I do.
But do proceed with your argument, which would give me the ability in an actual courtroom to cook you to an ideal shade of pink. Legal arguments, especially oral advocacy is NOT linear, and those who think it is have been overdosing on Judge Judy.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 18, 2009 2:50 PM CST
When the corporations and banking houses we have been bailing out were paying bonuses and declaring dividends, we were not “in it together.” When equity investors speculating on the exchanges were getting 23% returns, they did not send me any. It is only when a bailout needs to be funded, and the INDU has taken a 30% hit, that the profit-takers who rode the cycle up feel the need for such comeraderie with my wallet. I could do with a little less “togetherness,” thank you.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Apr 18, 2009 4:18 PM CST
And I can do with a little less layperson, cheap populist ranting and raving.
Is there really any question that refusing to intervene to save the financial sector would implode the entire US economy? Can you look a bit farther than FOX News or Rush Limbaugh for information?
This isn’t about “your” wallet. But as long as you want to remain off topic, exactly how much have you paid out of pocket in real dollars for this imagined bailout burden you’re complaining about? If you are a US citizen with a job, you’re going to pay taxes regardless of what those tax dollars finance, whether it be an ill-advised invasion of Iraq that didn’t get this kind of outrage from the same folks crying bloody murder over the “bailout” or for life support for the US financial sector. I know this is bad news and tough to absorb, but there are responsibilities and sacrifice that come along with US citizenship and even more of that to be a credible part of the human race. Get over it and join.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 18, 2009 5:03 PM CST
Then stop ranting and raving.
As a matter of fact, there is a real question whether any aspect of the bailout was necessary. We will never know, now, what the economy would have done without it. However, the economic theory that allowed the “financial sector” to operate with no controls also calls for it to be allowed to fail. I see no upside to a modified capitalism that allows the authors of misconduct to keep all profits, while passing the losses to the general public. That only makes sense if you revert to a feudal rationale that the white-collar criminals were “born better” and so have a right to live as parasites on the workers producing value.
Last, as far as what matters to my opinion, it is about my wallet. I have a right to not “join” (at least to not join happily) and I intend to exercise it. I am not an ant or a lemming, and I am not obligated to agree with moronic apologies on behalf of white collar criminals. I really don’t care whether some anonymous poster impersonating a “barrister” likes it or not.
Flag this comment
It is all over now
Apr 18, 2009 9:17 PM CST
I don’t care about the banks and I don’t care about the bankers. I want to see everyone default on their debt. I just want to see the whole system burn. Let people file bankruptcy and discharge everything but child support. The MetLife survey a few months ago showed that most of America doesn’t have a pot to piss in anyway so who really cares if they default. Welcome to subprime America.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Apr 19, 2009 2:52 PM CST
Without question, your cheap populist, large print USA Today simpleton diatribe is the ranting and raving here. The mere mention of another point of view sent you into the frothing rage typical of an uninformed layperson. To take it a step farther, nothing you’ve posted disturbs that premise.
I get it Mr. McLeod, you’re mad as heck at the big fish and you’re not going to take it anymore.
Your rights were never in question in anything I posted. Again, merely offering an observation that the pennies of tax money you contribute are nominal at best did not require your childish tirade.
Finally, words cannot do justice to how immaterial your rantings are to me. To suggest that anything you’ve ever had to say triggers a “like” from me is akin to you crowning yourself king of the planet…and equally delusional.
I have nothing more to say to you…it’s not like you have enough of a clue to understand.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 19, 2009 6:55 PM CST
“Barrister,” you should learn how to read. Also, how to argue persuasively, if you ever intend to be a real lawyer. You are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster in this thread, perhaps born of your inexperience and stupidity. Being argumentative and obnoxious does not mean you have won any argument. In fact, when you declare how great you are, and how great your “cogent argument” is (as in post # 22), you show what an inexperienced clod you really are. In real practice, you can’t declare yourself a great lawyer, and you can’t declare yourself the winner of an argument. When you try, it tells everybody you are a nothing with a nothing argument. This is why “James” and “Please stop whining” have stopped even responding to you. While you have resorted to ad hominem rants against every poster on this page who had had the temerity to disagree wih you, not one poster has voiced agreement with any of your off-the-rack, partisan crap. You have no following here. Your persuasive technique sucks. Only you are listening to your “argument.” No firm in its right mind is going to let you within a mile of a jury, so dream on about arguing jury trials. Thank you for agreeing to stop your moronic, insulting and vacuous postings. We will see, now, if you can even keep your word.
Flag this comment
Debra VEOLI
Apr 20, 2009 6:28 AM CST
Didn’t SHAKESPEAR say: Neither a borrower nor a lender be? Well if this schmoe never borrowed money, he would not be in this pickel.
Now he is crying? Who aksed him to take the money? Not me? Not the lending company.
He should not be fit to be a LAWYER.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Apr 20, 2009 9:46 AM CST
Question, who is “SHAKESPEAR”...?
Follow up question…why do ignorant laypersons like Debra, James and B. McLeod litter a message board/blog that this publication provides for us?
Third question, when did “aksed” become an entry in Webster’s Dictionary?
William Shakespeare must be rolling over in his grave.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 20, 2009 11:21 AM CST
Oh, look. Another post by “Barrister.” Huh.
It’s funny how “Barrister” is hung up the the “layperson” status issue, when “Barrister” is clearly the only one on this thread who is not a lawyer, but is trying to impersonate one.
Perhaps it was a project for “Barrister’s” high school sociology class to post on this site and see if anyone would be fooled. But, it is all together too clear that “Barrister” cannot be a real lawyer. The posts are too clearly based on uninformed stereotypes that non-lawyers have of lawyers. BUSTED, “Barrister.” You aren’t fooling anyone.
Flag this comment
anonymous
Apr 27, 2009 7:12 PM CST
The sum borrowed was $220,000, the approximate amount owed is $430,000. Below is the first page of correspondence and the last page - the conclusion. It should be noted that approximately 70k was borrowed to cover medical expenses after my left leg was severed off in an accident.
As luck would have it, a week after taking the Feb 2008 Bar, my good leg was fractured in four places. As a consequence I requested, among other requests, a temporary medical deferment. While required to provide such a deferment on my guaranteed student loans, my loan servicer refused to make this deferment available to me.
RE: DENIAL OF NEW YORK STATE LAW LICENSE DUE TO STUDENT LOANS
I was approved and certified for admission to the New York State Bar by both Court-appointed Character and Fitness Committees: the 20-member voting Committee, and the 3-member Subcommittee which interviewed me personally. After this careful review of my application, which took nine months, had
been submitted to the Court, the Appellate Division (Third Department) denied my admission to the Bar.
While I have accepted life as one raised in and out of New York State’s foster care program and homeless shelters, and generally living in abject poverty1, I was unprepared for the Court to refuse my admission simply because it believed that I paid too much for my education, took too long to complete my
education, and apparently did not yet repay enough of my student debt to deserve admission to the New York State Bar.
In the Court’s ruling2, neither the standard on which my application was denied nor the requisite conditions to reconsider my application for admission were set forth. Moreover, the decision presupposes that I am an embezzling criminal and will pilfer from my clients to pay off my student loans. Through sheer hard work and dedication in the face of adversity and the most impoverished of circumstances, I did all the things necessary to achieve the American Dream, only to be told, for antithetical reasons, that it was not meant for me.
Judicious analysis of the language used by the Court reveals the disparate and unforgiving treatment between the haves and have-nots in the conclusion it reached: my life-long endeavor to overcome poverty through education – and the requisite student loans necessary to attain the highest of educational
achievements, including obtaining my Juris Doctor Degree from the University of California Hastings College of the Law – equates to a moral and character flaw on my part. Most ironically, because my efforts have been thwarted and discredited at my final hurdle, I have been forced to live the remainder of my live in poverty, unable to repay my student debt apparently incurred in vain, or be a contributing, taxpaying member of society. Instead, it appears I will now become a burden, unable to meet my financial or social obligations.
In denying admission, the Court was informed that I had pending employment3 with a mid-size law firm,
and also that once admitted, would qualify for loan forgiveness by participating in the Loan Repayment
Assistance Program (LRAP). I am now jobless, with no employment prospects since being denied the privilege to practice law, and I now will not qualify to give back to the community from which I came by participating in the LRAP. The Court, in taking over nine months to render a decision on my admission to the Bar, has itself has prevented me from accepting employment opportunities in my profession that
would have allowed me the income to begin repaying my student loans.
Although the Court trumped both the Character and Fitness Committee’s and the Subcommittee’s recommendations for approval of my application, both committees found the behavior of my student loan servicer, Sallie Mae4, questionable. Thus, the Court’s decision also effectively endorses and perpetuates
Sallie Mae’s unlawful behavior of in the servicing of my student loans, and also contrarily holds me accountable for its wrongful conduct.
***continued below****
Flag this comment
anonymous
Apr 27, 2009 7:13 PM CST
In Conclusion
Sallie Mae has breached numerous federal regulatory laws in its deceptive misrepresentation and withholding of borrower information. After my loans defaulted while spending more than 18 fruitless months trying to obtain necessary information for repayment options, deferment options and forbearance options specific to my account from Sallie Mae, Sallie Mae filed claims for my loans with HESC and EdFund. HESC has already paid on one of these loans36. EdFund has paid on two of these loans37. In forcing my loans into default, Sallie Mae has precluded me from obtaining my license to practice law.
As someone who was homeless as a child, never went to high school, began his educational endeavors with a GED and community college, and was disabled by a severed limb at the age of twenty-five while in school and without sufficient medical insurance38, I have overcome more obstacles than many can fathom. Being struck down at the final hurdle, as a result of an unprecedented decision, will mean that the past twenty-five years of my life have been a massive and costly exercise in futility. I am now unable to practice my profession that I worked most of my adult life for, repay the student debt incurred in its pursuit, or even obtain medical insurance.
Most significantly, I have shown no evidence of financial irresponsibility. I have tried and continue to try to seek the cooperation of a negligent and default-hungry loan servicer, and I incurred only student debt that I fully expected to be able to repay. In the words of Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Cooper,
“Implicit in this ... is an assumption that any attorney with substantial unpaid debts is prima facie unfit to practice law. I find that assumption untenable. One can only wonder how a young law graduate with poor parents and a substantial student loan debt is expected to earn the money to pay that debt if denied the opportunity to practice the profession which was the raison d’etre for the incurrence of the debt.“39.
The consequences of this decision are far-reaching, and some are irreparable. For the rest of my life, I must state that I have been denied my license, prejudicing or altogether preventing my success on legal or other applications.
While I do not seek to disparage the Court or its judgment, the Court took over 9 months to render its decision on my admission, valuable time during which my ability to acc.ept job opportunities in my profession would have provided the income to begin repaying my educational loans, then in its decision laid blame on me for not making ‘substantial payments’ towards my student loans, stating that I have “not
been flexible in [my] discussions with the loan servicer§’~.
As clearly documented and detailed above, this misstates my historic interactions over the past 18 months with Sallie Mae, my only loan servicer. It is understandable that the Court would seek to protect the repute of the legal profession, but the presumption is that any poor student with substantial student loans is both irresponsible and a thief.
Apparently, the dedication, perseverance, and commitment it takes to realize this level of achievement with zero familial ‘financial support is simply discounted. Applying this rationale without informing a potential Bar applicant of the ramifications of substantial student debt results in absurd and inconsistent decisions in the admissions process in which the Court is not required to layout its reasoning, not to
mention serve to widen the socioeconomic gap by punishing those who seek to elevate themselves, wholly demolishing in one fell swoop the American canon of equal opportunity.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.