Ha! Now he never will.........

oh character and fitness, you fickle biatch.

Ywah...I don't have a problem with this. Pay your farking loans you idiot.

26 years... get a job, ya fu©kin' leech.

The three lawyers who interviewed him in Albany in January found Mr. Bowman's "determination to pursue a postsecondary education remarkable," according to the written evaluation. As for the loans, they continued, "it appears unconscionable that a student loan indebtedness could go from $270,000 to $435,000 in four years."

That Sallie Mae is one tough biatch. I kind of feel sorry for the guy, but maybe you chose the wrong vocation, pal.

It sounds like there are arseholes on both sides of this situation.

Nabb1: I kind of feel sorry for the guy, but maybe you chose the wrong vocation, pal.

Wait...

"The size of this account is extremely unusual, but not surprising given that the customer took out 32 loans to pursue undergraduate, law and masters of law studies and has not made a single monthly payment over his 26-year student loan history."

Okay, I retract any semblance of pity.

Ingaba: It sounds like there are arseholes on both sides of this situation.

This. Why not let the guy practice law with the stipulation that when he gets a job he wages will be garnished to repay the loans? Preventing him from getting a job seems lose-lose for both sides.

Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

Jmast7: Ingaba: It sounds like there are arseholes on both sides of this situation.

This. Why not let the guy practice law with the stipulation that when he gets a job he wages will be garnished to repay the loans? Preventing him from getting a job seems lose-lose for both sides.

They guy didn't pay a freaking dime in 26 years. Not one. The man is not fit to practice law. How can he be responsible for client funds when he didn't even mail Sallie Mae an occasional twenty bucks with an "I'm sorry, I got his by a jet ski and this is all I've got right now"? Let him drop fries.

Jmast7: This. Why not let the guy practice law with the stipulation that when he gets a job he wages will be garnished to repay the loans? Preventing him from getting a job seems lose-lose for both sides.

First, it speaks poorly of his attentiveness to contractual/legal obligations. Second, massive unpaid debt is a red flag for someone who seeks to be put in direct control of clients' money and assets.

DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Jmast7: Ingaba: It sounds like there are arseholes on both sides of this situation.

This. Why not let the guy practice law with the stipulation that when he gets a job he wages will be garnished to repay the loans? Preventing him from getting a job seems lose-lose for both sides.

what makes you think that he'll pay back his student loans now? let's be honest, anyone that is decades out of law school and took 4 attempts to pass the bar probably isn't getting hired by big law. 23 years of defaulting on student loans is a pretty serious disregard for one's commitments and shouldn't be excused by the bar association.

kronicfeld: In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Again - so what? This is stupid moralizing on the part of the Bar.

DamnYankees: Again - so what? This is stupid moralizing on the part of the Bar.

making character and fitness judgments is a pretty major part of the character and fitness committee. before i could be sworn in i had to meet with a committee member to explain an MIP conviction from 5 years earlier.

DamnYankees: Again - so what? This is stupid moralizing on the part of the Bar.

No. No it isn't. This guy is in default of a federal loan. He's not allowed to practice law, medicine, or anything else that is federally licensed.

I know they say "Sallie Mae" but a good portion of those loans are Stafford loans which are guaranteed by the federal government. He was REQUIRED to complete entrance counseling and a Promissory note EVERY SINGLE YEAR up until 2004, when the federal loans went into Master Promissory Notes.

For his private loans from SM, he is *still* required to complete a prom note every year. No excuse.

DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

There are actually many high paying jobs that a person could take if they have a law degree, minus the license.

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Again - so what? This is stupid moralizing on the part of the Bar.

You may have missed this: this is, literally, the "character and fitness" requirement at issue. It's entirely about the ethics and character of the potential attorney. The entire job of that board is this sort of issue, whether the person is of the right character.

Realistically, I would have been more inclined to support this guy if he'd not gotten a Masters of Law; it was extraneous. You only get that degree to teach with it, at least here in the USA, so it's bizarre that he would start a new degree then instead of starting to practice at that time.

Separately: if you take four tries to pass the bar, you may have picked the wrong profession. It's just a measurement of your studying.

thomps: making character and fitness judgments is a pretty major part of the character and fitness committee. before i could be sworn in i had to meet with a committee member to explain an MIP conviction from 5 years earlier.

Yeah, and I generally think its dumb. But this isn't a 'moral' issue. This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank.

Jmast7: Preventing him from getting a job seems lose-lose for both sides.

They aren't preventing him from getting a job. They are preventing him from joining a profession that they hold entrance exams for.

Ain't the Moral Character examination a biatch.

DamnYankees: This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank. the federal Department of Education

I think your missing this: If you default on a Sallie Mae loan, they are going to ruin your credit. If you default on a FEDERAL loan, they are going to ruin your life.

In order to get to federal default, you need to make no payments or contact for 9 months.

what_now: I think your missing this: If you default on a Sallie Mae loan, they are going to ruin your credit. If you default on a FEDERAL loan, they are going to ruin your life.

In order to get to federal default, you need to make no payments or contact for 9 months.

Yes. I know this. He's a douche and a delinquent. I just hate the whole idea that the Bar tests your morality.

He should sell a kidney.
/or two
//or his liver

DamnYankees: Yeah, and I generally think its dumb. But this isn't a 'moral' issue. This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank.

anyone that is willing to disregard almost a half a million dollars worth of loans for a quarter of a century probably doesn't have the strongest ethics with regard to financial dealings. since bar membership implicitly gives the bars seal of approval for financial dealings, red flags in this area are a big deal.

thomps: anyone that is willing to disregard almost a half a million dollars worth of loans for a quarter of a century probably doesn't have the strongest ethics with regard to financial dealings. since bar membership implicitly gives the bars seal of approval for financial dealings, red flags in this area are a big deal.

Not to mention that the absolute quickest thing that will get you disbarred is farking with client funds.

DamnYankees: thomps: making character and fitness judgments is a pretty major part of the character and fitness committee. before i could be sworn in i had to meet with a committee member to explain an MIP conviction from 5 years earlier.

Yeah, and I generally think its dumb. But this isn't a 'moral' issue. This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank.

I don't understand your reasoning here.

(a) he's shown that he doesn't properly value contractual obligations.
(b) he's in default on federally backed loans.
(c) he appears unrepentant
(d) rather than start paying it off after his college degree, he entered law school. Then he entered a Masters of Law program. It was unnecessary, and during that time he wasted money on things like vacations rather than pay even token amounts.

He strikes me as someone I'd never trust my money to, and that's the key: the bar has to decide if it would vouch for this man being in charge of someone else's life and money.

thomps: DamnYankees: Yeah, and I generally think its dumb. But this isn't a 'moral' issue. This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank.

anyone that is willing to disregard almost a half a million dollars worth of loans for a quarter of a century probably doesn't have the strongest ethics with regard to financial dealings. since bar membership implicitly gives the bars seal of approval for financial dealings, red flags in this area are a big deal.

I just really don't think its fair to preclude someone for practicing their chosen profession because they have shown a propensity for something. It stinks of prior restraint (to borrow a phrase), and is unfair. It gives the guy no chance to actually improve. If they want to be stickler, put the dude on ABA probation or something and just watch him to make sure he does the right thing for 12 months or so. But to flat out deny him bar membership is way too harsh.

DamnYankees: I just hate the whole idea that the Bar tests your morality.

If I need you to keep me out of jail or help me negotiate a contract, I need to know you are trustworthy.

I work at a University, and *I* would be fired if I was in default of federal loans.

DamnYankees: I just really don't think its fair to preclude someone for practicing their chosen profession because they have shown a propensity for something.

Look, I know you're in law school and so perhaps this is a sensitive issue, but trust me, this is almost certainly the right decision. The entire concept of your bar license is not just that you passed the exam, but that you show the character such that the Bar can vouch for your reliability. That's why we have to sustain our license, not just get it once.

"It stinks of prior restraint (to borrow a phrase), and is unfair. It gives the guy no chance to actually improve. If they want to be stickler, put the dude on ABA probation or something and just watch him to make sure he does the right thing for 12 months or so. But to flat out deny him bar membership is way too harsh."

You're ignoring the decades he's had to even made a token payment of a few dollars. He's never paid a cent.

I'm going to assume you haven't done the MPRE yet (the ethics portion of the bar exam in most states) or its equivalent: money issues are really, really big. One of the most sure-fire ways to be disbarred in any jurisdiction is to mishandle money. This man has shown not just a propensity for such things, but a decades-long history of doing so.

Maybe if he'd stopped with $260k in debt before his Masters of Law (a degree only useful for teaching) they'd have been more lenient. Or if he'd applied himself enough to pass the exam on the first or second try. Or made a single payment in all that time to his debtors.

DamnYankees: thomps: DamnYankees: Yeah, and I generally think its dumb. But this isn't a 'moral' issue. This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank.

anyone that is willing to disregard almost a half a million dollars worth of loans for a quarter of a century probably doesn't have the strongest ethics with regard to financial dealings. since bar membership implicitly gives the bars seal of approval for financial dealings, red flags in this area are a big deal.

I just really don't think its fair to preclude someone for practicing their chosen profession because they have shown a propensity for something. It stinks of prior restraint (to borrow a phrase), and is unfair. It gives the guy no chance to actually improve. If they want to be stickler, put the dude on ABA probation or something and just watch him to make sure he does the right thing for 12 months or so. But to flat out deny him bar membership is way too harsh.

how would you feel about giving this guy a $25,000 retainer to perform services for you if you knew this about him? i certainly wouldn't want him handling my funds.

WaltzingMathilda: how would you feel about giving this guy a $25,000 retainer to perform services for you if you knew this about him? i certainly wouldn't want him handling my funds.

There are lots of shiatty lawyers I wouldn't want to hire if I knew everything about them. Do you feel the ABA shouldn't admit anyone who has ever defaulted on a loan? Mortgage? Car payment?

DamnYankees: I just really don't think its fair to preclude someone for practicing their chosen profession because they have shown a propensity for something. It stinks of prior restraint (to borrow a phrase), and is unfair. It gives the guy no chance to actually improve. If they want to be stickler, put the dude on ABA probation or something and just watch him to make sure he does the right thing for 12 months or so. But to flat out deny him bar membership is way too harsh.

Prior restraint? That's stopping someone before they do something. This guy hasn't paid a dime in 26 years. You want to give the guy a chance to improve with other people's money?

DamnYankees: There are lots of shiatty lawyers I wouldn't want to hire if I knew everything about them. Do you feel the ABA shouldn't admit anyone who has ever defaulted on a loan? Mortgage? Car payment?

Not without getting an explanation from them.

Everyone deserves a second chance, but not necessarily a third and a fourth. This guy has already received decades of second, third, fourth and five hundredth chances.

Nabb1: Prior restraint? That's stopping someone before they do something. This guy hasn't paid a dime in 26 years. You want to give the guy a chance to improve with other people's money?

It's not my job to prevent him from having that chance. I don't think should be anyone's job.

I mean, do you think this dude should be barred from all jobs? Can mcDonalds trust him at the cash register? Can Macy's? Why are lawyers special?

DamnYankees: I just really don't think its fair to preclude someone for practicing their chosen profession because they have shown a propensity for something. It stinks of prior restraint (to borrow a phrase), and is unfair. It gives the guy no chance to actually improve. If they want to be stickler, put the dude on ABA probation or something and just watch him to make sure he does the right thing for 12 months or so. But to flat out deny him bar membership is way too harsh.

financial responsibility is directly related to the practice of law. it is absolutely a reasonable consideration. prior restraint is the whole purpose of an admissions board - weed out those that have proven that they don't uphold the minimum requirements for admission.
full disclosure: i'm bar licensed but don't practice (and am still able to pay back my sizable student loans). this guy has an undergraduate degree and two graduate degrees - if he wanted to find a job that would allow him to pay back his loans, he certainly could have done that without a license.

DamnYankees: WaltzingMathilda: how would you feel about giving this guy a $25,000 retainer to perform services for you if you knew this about him? i certainly wouldn't want him handling my funds.

There are lots of shiatty lawyers I wouldn't want to hire if I knew everything about them. Do you feel the ABA shouldn't admit anyone who has ever defaulted on a loan? Mortgage? Car payment?

i don't want to split hairs with you here, but since this seems like a rather thick piece of hair i'll indulge: there is a stark difference between "someone who has ever defaulted on a loan" and "someone who has made a career of defaulting on loans."

DamnYankees: I just really don't think its fair to preclude someone for practicing their chosen profession because they have shown a propensity for something

What if that propensity for something directly relates to their ability to provide competent services? I mean, the Medical Board here in California won't license a doctor who has known and documented substance abuse issues, for example.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Prior restraint? That's stopping someone before they do something. This guy hasn't paid a dime in 26 years. You want to give the guy a chance to improve with other people's money?

It's not my job to prevent him from having that chance. I don't think should be anyone's job.

I mean, do you think this dude should be barred from all jobs? Can mcDonalds trust him at the cash register? Can Macy's? Why are lawyers special?

because like any license, there are qualifications for a license to practice law. one of them is to show you have the character and fitness to be trusted by the public at large, to handle their funds, to handle their confidence, and to handle their trust. this man's actions shows that he is a high risk to abrogate his duties to his clients. it's so farking simple i'm scared for you if you can't understand it.

DamnYankees: I mean, do you think this dude should be barred from all jobs? Can mcDonalds trust him at the cash register? Can Macy's? Why are lawyers special?

Has the phrase "fiduciary duty" come up yet in law school? Are you really equating a McDonald's cash register with a client trust account? Really?

BTW, the ABA doesn't admit anyone to the practice of law. The ABA is a professional association. State bars admit people to the practice of law.

Since when did we require lawyers to have ethics and stuff?

DamnYankees: It's not my job to prevent him from having that chance. I don't think should be anyone's job.

I mean, do you think this dude should be barred from all jobs? Can mcDonalds trust him at the cash register? Can Macy's? Why are lawyers special?

Comments like this make me wonder if you have the character to be an attorney, because you clearly don't see what's so wrong with this man's behavior.

I'm not going to repeat it again, but he's demonstrated the sort of character that bar associations are supposed to keep from becoming practicing attorneys. You act like he was blindsided by this, like this was a sudden punishment. He's had decades of constant warnings of how bad his situation was, and he apparently wasn't concerned until he could make a news story about his alleged victimhood.

Nabb1: Has the phrase "fiduciary duty" come up yet in law school? Are you really equating a McDonald's cash register with a client trust account? Really?

I wasn't aware this man had broken any fiduciary duties. I don't think its fair to assume he will do so because he has personal loan issues.

Nabb1: BTW, the ABA doesn't admit anyone to the practice of law. The ABA is a professional association. State bars admit people to the practice of law.

Yeah, I mixed that up. Thanks for the correction.

40below: Since when did we require lawyers to have ethics and stuff?

hey-oh

DamnYankees: I mean, do you think this dude should be barred from all jobs? Can mcDonalds trust him at the cash register? Can Macy's? Why are lawyers special?

That's up to an indiviudal employer. *I* wouldn't want him representing my industry, and apparently, neither do lawyers.

DamnYankees: I wasn't aware this man had broken any fiduciary duties.

He defaulted on 32 loans.

mattharvest: Comments like this make me wonder if you have the character to be an attorney, because you clearly don't see what's so wrong with this man's behavior.

Of course I see what's wrong with it. Please don't make a strawman out of my position. I just don't think this failure should bar him from his chosen profession. It wouldn't be very hard for the bar to admit him saying his license is contingent on financial compliance with all loans.

what_now: That's up to an indiviudal employer. *I* wouldn't want him representing my industry, and apparently, neither do lawyers.

So leave it up to the employer. That's fine with me. The state bar is not an employer, though.

what_now: He defaulted on 32 loans.

That's not a fiduciary duty, from what I understand. That's a different kind of thing.

DamnYankees: I wasn't aware this man had broken any fiduciary duties. I don't think its fair to assume he will do so because he has personal loan issues.

This is a bizarre pair of sentences, especially so close to one another: what do you think "fiduciary duty" means, such that a loan isn't one?

He's broken thirty-two fiduciary duties, remains unrepentant, and without making any effort whatsoever to resolve them.

DamnYankees: I wasn't aware this man had broken any fiduciary duties. I don't think its fair to assume he will do so because he has personal loan issues.

In some states, a past personal bankruptcy can keep you out of the profession. They look at past financial troubles very seriously. Look, I might even agree with some reprieve if he had made any even symbolic gesture of responsibility by occasionally sending something, even if very modest, but the article indicates he never sent one lousy dime.

DamnYankees: what_now: That's up to an indiviudal employer. *I* wouldn't want him representing my industry, and apparently, neither do lawyers.

So leave it up to the employer. That's fine with me. The state bar is not an employer, though.

what_now: He defaulted on 32 loans.

That's not a fiduciary duty, from what I understand. That's a different kind of thing.

You're wrong.

A fiduciary duty is a pretty commonsense term, and it refers to whenever you have contractual obligations pertaining to finances. One such duty would be as an attorney in charge of a client's trust account. Another such duty would be as a party to a loan, owing a debt. In both cases, the person in question receives a certain amount of money and thus incurs debt to the source (the bank, or the client) and signs a contract to satisfy that debt.

He breached them. A lot.

DamnYankees: what_now: He defaulted on 32 loans.

That's not a fiduciary duty, from what I understand. That's a different kind of thing.

Look. I don't have GED in Law, so I don't know what the term "fiduciary duty" means to you lawyer types, but to us Student Loan Officers, it means "pay your farking bills".

mattharvest: This is a bizarre pair of sentences, especially so close to one another: what do you think "fiduciary duty" means, such that a loan isn't one?

He's broken thirty-two fiduciary duties, remains unrepentant, and without making any effort whatsoever to resolve them.

A fiduciary duty is a duty which has to do with acting on behalf of someone else. It has nothing to do with your personal finances.

Nabb1: In some states, a past personal bankruptcy can keep you out of the profession. They look at past financial troubles very seriously.

And I don't think that's very fair. That's all I'm saying.

DamnYankees: what_now: That's up to an indiviudal employer. *I* wouldn't want him representing my industry, and apparently, neither do lawyers.

So leave it up to the employer. That's fine with me. The state bar is not an employer, though.

What if he hangs up a shingle? Should he put "I defaulted on 32 loans" right on his business cards? On the sign? In big bold letters on the top of the representation agreement, "I TOOK OUT 32 STUDENT LOANS AND NEVER PAID ONE RED CENT OVER 26 YEARS, BUT I TOTALLY KNOW WHAT I'M DOING"?

mattharvest: A fiduciary duty is a pretty commonsense term, and it refers to whenever you have contractual obligations pertaining to finances.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this. That's not what a fiduciary duty is from everything I've learned.

Nabb1: What if he hangs up a shingle? Should he put "I defaulted on 32 loans" right on his business cards? On the sign? In big bold letters on the top of the representation agreement, "I TOOK OUT 32 STUDENT LOANS AND NEVER PAID ONE RED CENT OVER 26 YEARS, BUT I TOTALLY KNOW WHAT I'M DOING"?

I dunno. Should he have to anounce that he has had multiple affairs and divorces if he goes into family law? Should he have to admit he's been considered a racist if he goes into civil rights law? I don't think so.

what_now: Look. I don't have GED in Law, so I don't know what the term "fiduciary duty" means to you lawyer types, but to us Student Loan Officers, it means "pay your farking bills".

a fiduciary duty is the duty to handle someone else's financial responsibilities with a duty of care. damnyankees is arguing that it's not a reflection of a fiduciary duty because it's his own financial responsibilities, not a third party's.

Nabb1: DamnYankees: I wasn't aware this man had broken any fiduciary duties. I don't think its fair to assume he will do so because he has personal loan issues.

In some states, a past personal bankruptcy can keep you out of the profession. They look at past financial troubles very seriously. Look, I might even agree with some reprieve if he had made any even symbolic gesture of responsibility by occasionally sending something, even if very modest, but the article indicates he never sent one lousy dime.

I agree in particular with the issue of even a symbolic gesture: he appears to have almost attempted to spite his debtors.

thomps: a fiduciary duty is the duty to handle someone else's financial responsibilities with a duty of care. damnyankees is arguing that it's not a reflection of a fiduciary duty because it's his own financial responsibilities, not a third party's.

Exactly. There are plenty of people out there who you can imagine being horrible with their own finances, but having a sense of honor and duty when it comes to respecting other people. I'm not saying they are common, but its certainly possible.

DamnYankees: thomps: a fiduciary duty is the duty to handle someone else's financial responsibilities with a duty of care. damnyankees is arguing that it's not a reflection of a fiduciary duty because it's his own financial responsibilities, not a third party's.

Exactly. There are plenty of people out there who you can imagine being horrible with their own finances, but having a sense of honor and duty when it comes to respecting other people. I'm not saying they are common, but its certainly possible.

I might agree that this guy had a sense of honor if he had ever once tried to pay something, anything, on his massive debt load. Instead, he just kept the meter running.

Like I said above: this is no different from the Medical Board denying a license to someone with known, documented, and admitted substance abuse problems.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: A fiduciary duty is a pretty commonsense term, and it refers to whenever you have contractual obligations pertaining to finances.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this. That's not what a fiduciary duty is from everything I've learned.

You can be pretty sure all you want; you're mistaken. In the context of character and fitness, you have a fiduciary duty to your debtors to make reasonable efforts to satisfy your debt. It's a contracted-to element of your loan.

Nabb1: I might agree that this guy had a sense of honor if he had ever once tried to pay something, anything, on his massive debt load. Instead, he just kept the meter running.

Sure. He sounds like a douche. But lots of douche's practice law. I just really don't think its fair to make the leap from "can't handle his own finances" to "will break fiduciary duties". If/when he does it, disbar him. But don't prevent him from having the chance to do the right thing.

KaponoFor3: Like I said above: this is no different from the Medical Board denying a license to someone with known, documented, and admitted substance abuse problems.

Excellent point.

Part of why state bars are concerned with your problems with debt is not just that you might steal a client's money or handle it poorly, but also that you might be susceptible to manipulation.

A person with nearly half a million in debt, who clearly cannot manage money, is going to be rather desperate for a solution. Perhaps desperate enough to be bribed...

KaponoFor3: Like I said above: this is no different from the Medical Board denying a license to someone with known, documented, and admitted substance abuse problems.

It's very different. Having a drug problem prevents you from actually being a doctor - when you are high you can't be trusted to do anything medically. Also, drug abuse is a crime. Is defaulting on a loan criminal?

mattharvest: A person with nearly half a million in debt, who clearly cannot manage money, is going to be rather desperate for a solution. Perhaps desperate enough to be bribed...

Or dip into his IOLTA account.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I might agree that this guy had a sense of honor if he had ever once tried to pay something, anything, on his massive debt load. Instead, he just kept the meter running.

Sure. He sounds like a douche. But lots of douche's practice law. I just really don't think its fair to make the leap from "can't handle his own finances" to "will break fiduciary duties". If/when he does it, disbar him. But don't prevent him from having the chance to do the right thing.

Ah, so this is the problem: you think everyone deserves a crack at the brass ring, just because they apply?

No, he had his shot, during the decades of having 32 loans, to be honorable. If he'd done so, he could be admitted to practice. He chose to be dishonorable for decades. He already gave up his shot.

You know you must be a real piece of shiat if your character isn't up to the standards required to be a lawyer.

mattharvest: A person with nearly half a million in debt, who clearly cannot manage money, is going to be rather desperate for a solution. Perhaps desperate enough to be bribed...

Or desperate enough to offer legal advice to someone who is planning the commission of a crime in exchange for part of the proceeds, for example.

deadapostle: You know you must be a real piece of shiat if your character isn't up to the standards required to be a lawyer.

hey-oh!

mattharvest: No, he had his shot, during the decades of having 32 loans, to be honorable. If he'd done so, he could be admitted to practice. He chose to be dishonorable for decades. He already gave up his shot.

Lots of people are dishonorable at many many things. It shouldn't prevent you from pursuing your career.

mattharvest: Ah, so this is the problem: you think everyone deserves a crack at the brass ring, just because they apply?

"Everyone"? No. But I think you would need a pretty extraordinary reason to prevent someone from having a chance. And loan defaulting isn't extraordinary. Maybe I'm just more forgiving than most. Who knows.

KaponoFor3: mattharvest: A person with nearly half a million in debt, who clearly cannot manage money, is going to be rather desperate for a solution. Perhaps desperate enough to be bribed...

Or desperate enough to offer legal advice to someone who is planning the commission of a crime in exchange for part of the proceeds, for example.

But lawyers will do this anyway. Should the bar reject anyone who has a tint of being a shady character? I think that's grossly unfair.

DamnYankees: KaponoFor3: Like I said above: this is no different from the Medical Board denying a license to someone with known, documented, and admitted substance abuse problems.

It's very different. Having a drug problem prevents you from actually being a doctor - when you are high you can't be trusted to do anything medically. Also, drug abuse is a crime. Is defaulting on a loan criminal?

You're engaging in some really bad reasoning there.

First, you don't understand the actual reasons why doctors can't have substance abuse problems: you don't give a junkie access to a scrip pad. Concerns about their behavior on the floor are important, but they're not the only thing.

Second, you can be prohibited from being licensed as a doctor or lawyer for past substance abuse, legal or illegal. Try getting licensed as a drunk. It doesn't need to be a crime; it just needs to show that you can be manipulated, can't be trusted, and may engage in self-destructive or other-destructive behavior.

Third, you don't seem to get how bad his character must be to have never taken responsibility, in decades, for thirty-two personal loans. During that time, he was content to live off other people (e.g. his girlfriend while getting his superfluous Masters in Law), but couldn't be bothered to pay a single cent towards his debt.

I can't fathom why you think this man is trustworthy enough for a law license.

mattharvest: First, you don't understand the actual reasons why doctors can't have substance abuse problems: you don't give a junkie access to a scrip pad. Concerns about their behavior on the floor are important, but they're not the only thing.

For sure. I know there's also the risk of theft. I was just adding in some other shades.

mattharvest: Second, you can be prohibited from being licensed as a doctor or lawyer for past substance abuse, legal or illegal. Try getting licensed as a drunk. It doesn't need to be a crime; it just needs to show that you can be manipulated, can't be trusted, and may engage in self-destructive or other-destructive behavior.

Again, not sure that's very fair.

mattharvest: Third, you don't seem to get how bad his character must be to have never taken responsibility, in decades, for thirty-two personal loans.

Yes I do. Please stop conflating moral judgment of this douche to what I think his rights should be.

mattharvest: I can't fathom why you think this man is trustworthy enough for a law license.

I don't think he's shown himself to be wretched enough to be denied one.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: No, he had his shot, during the decades of having 32 loans, to be honorable. If he'd done so, he could be admitted to practice. He chose to be dishonorable for decades. He already gave up his shot.

Lots of people are dishonorable at many many things. It shouldn't prevent you from pursuing your career.

Yeah, except that honesty is one of the core tenets of the practice of law - honesty with your clients, candor to the court, professionalism in your dealings with other attorneys. And why is that? Because in this profession, we are entrusted with the property, money, and even the freedom (if you are in criminal law) of others. And the profession has a duty to everyone else to steer criminals, deviants, and reprobates away from the bar and not admit them in the first place. It is why states require a character and fitness screening. This is not kids' soccer - we're not going to give everyone a trophy. There is no right, no entitlement to a law license. It is a privilege and a responsibility, and anyone who has displayed a propensity in their adult life to repeatedly fall short of the ethical standards cannot be entrusted with it.

mattharvest: First, you don't understand the actual reasons why doctors can't have substance abuse problems: you don't give a junkie access to a scrip pad. Concerns about their behavior on the floor are important, but they're not the only thing.

BAM -- it's part that they don't want doctors practicing medicine on patients while high or drunk, but another large part is you don't give a thief the keys to a bank.

DamnYankees: Lots of people are dishonorable at many many things. It shouldn't prevent you from pursuing your career.

Yes, it should, if your career involves an oath about your honor, and where your entire job is to be entrusted with other people's lives and money.

This isn't, to use your example, a desk job at McDonald's. Comments like yours make me wonder if you have any expectations at all about the character of attorneys.

No one is saying you shouldn't be barred because someone defaulted on a loan or two; we're talking about a man with thirty two loans he's never even tried to pay.

Nabb1: This is not kids' soccer - we're not going to give everyone a trophy. There is no right, no entitlement to a law license. It is a privilege and a responsibility, and anyone who has displayed a propensity in their adult life to repeatedly fall short of the ethical standards cannot be entrusted with it.

I don't know about you guys, but I had to take an oath when I was sworn in. I am, along with all other members of the CA bar, considered an officer of the court. With that comes responsibilities.

in the interest of full disclosure, damn yankess, i think you should put all of your arguments in here on the character and fitness questionnaire.

WaltzingMathilda: in the interest of full disclosure, damn yankess, i think you should put all of your arguments in here on the character and fitness questionnaire.

LOL at that

I think I've made my stance clear. No point in going over every single post. There's just a fundamental disagreement between how much we're willing risk on giving someone a chance. That's fine.

DamnYankees: Lots of people are dishonorable at many many things. It shouldn't prevent you from pursuing your career.

Good luck getting a job at a bank if you've been convicted of embezzlement. Good luck getting a security clearance to work for a government contractor if you're in significant debt, or sleeping around on your wife, or an alcoholic. Good luck getting a job at a day care center if your spouse has a civil protective order against you. Etc.

I've got to go, but it looks like Kapono and Nabb have Yankee handled here anyway.

Seriously Yankee, you need to think a bit about how low your standards are for the ethics of lawyers. It honestly makes me concerned for you and your future clients if this is your view on how little we ask of potential lawyers. Ours is supposed to be the most trusted profession, and the key reason why so many people don't have that trust anymore is attorneys who have shown themselves to be unworthy of it. Attorneys such as this man.

Unrepentant wrong-doers don't deserve second chances until they, at the very least, admit how wrong they were and stop pretending they were the victims.

WaltzingMathilda: in the interest of full disclosure, damn yankess, i think you should put all of your arguments in here on the character and fitness questionnaire.

LOL.

KaponoFor3: Nabb1: This is not kids' soccer - we're not going to give everyone a trophy. There is no right, no entitlement to a law license. It is a privilege and a responsibility, and anyone who has displayed a propensity in their adult life to repeatedly fall short of the ethical standards cannot be entrusted with it.

I don't know about you guys, but I had to take an oath when I was sworn in. I am, along with all other members of the CA bar, considered an officer of the court. With that comes responsibilities.

I'm a member in FL and MD, and both bars required explicit oaths about truthtelling, honor, etc. I'm under the impression this is true of each bar in the country.

WaltzingMathilda: in the interest of full disclosure, damn yankess, i think you should put all of your arguments in here on the character and fitness questionnaire.

Full of win, this post is. I'd cry laughing if I were on the C&F committee and saw this exchange in an appendix.

I'm not sure what the relevant analogy would be in medicine. Typically all that the licensing board would know about you is whether or not you've ever been subject to any kind of official disciplinary action or have a criminal record. In terms of "giving the thief the keys to the bank" idea they do in fact let drug or alcohol addicted doctors practice provided that they follow certain rules including staying in a rehab program, etc.

DamnYankees: I think I've made my stance clear. No point in going over every single post. There's just a fundamental disagreement between how much we're willing risk on giving someone a chance. That's fine.

Look, go up to the top of the thread, and you'll see my first instinct was to be somewhat sympathetic, so I can't say you're completely out in left field, but after looking at it, the guy just hasn't shown any contrition or attempts, even symbolic, to make things right until it finally bit him in the ass.

DamnYankees: I think I've made my stance clear. No point in going over every single post. There's just a fundamental disagreement between how much we're willing risk on giving someone a chance. That's fine.

while i don't have a qualm with most bar associations' strong ethical advocacy on admission, i do think a lot of them drop the ball when it comes to enforcing ethical rules on their already-admitted members. if there is any hypocrisy, i think that's where it can be found.

Nabb1: Look, go up to the top of the thread, and you'll see my first instinct was to be somewhat sympathetic, so I can't say you're completely out in left field, but after looking at it, the guy just hasn't shown any contrition or attempts, even symbolic, to make things right until it finally bit him in the ass.

Yeah. Like I said, he's a douche. But until he shows a *professional* failure, not merely a personal failure which might hint at professional problems in the future, I'm not willing to deny him his chance.

KaponoFor3: I don't know about you guys, but I had to take an oath when I was sworn in. I am, along with all other members of the CA bar, considered an officer of the court. With that comes responsibilities.

Louisiana. I've taken an oath to leave the money in a paper bag in a dumpster behind the governor's office.

Yes, I am an officer of the court, too.

thomps: while i don't have a qualm with most bar associations' strong ethical advocacy on admission, i do think a lot of them drop the ball when it comes to enforcing ethical rules on their already-admitted members. if there is any hypocrisy, i think that's where it can be found.

Very possible. I don't know much about state bar disciplinary enforcement.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Look, go up to the top of the thread, and you'll see my first instinct was to be somewhat sympathetic, so I can't say you're completely out in left field, but after looking at it, the guy just hasn't shown any contrition or attempts, even symbolic, to make things right until it finally bit him in the ass.

Yeah. Like I said, he's a douche. But until he shows a *professional* failure, not merely a personal failure which might hint at professional problems in the future, I'm not willing to deny him his chance.

Well, I see your point, but before they are in the profession, their personal failings are all we have to judge them by, and there has to be some gate keeping, some standards. Besides, I've found after years of doing this that the kind of lawyer someone is is the kind of person he is. Very little difference, IMO. "Lawyer" is not something you do. It's something you are. If you're a shiatty, irresponsible person, odds are very high you'll be a shiatty, irresponsible lawyer.

Speaking of responsibility, I should really get some work done before the weekend...

mattharvest: WaltzingMathilda: in the interest of full disclosure, damn yankess, i think you should put all of your arguments in here on the character and fitness questionnaire.

Full of win, this post is. I'd cry laughing if I were on the C&F committee and saw this exchange in an appendix.

i'd probably get the red stamp out too. then everybody wins, including an unsuspecting public.

Nabb1: Speaking of responsibility, I should really get some work done before the weekend...

i just told a client "of course you'll be able to reach me on my cell phone tomorrow."

there is a strong possibility i'll be on a boat in Lake Michigan and will regret those words.

WaltzingMathilda: Nabb1: Speaking of responsibility, I should really get some work done before the weekend...

i just told a client "of course you'll be able to reach me on my cell phone tomorrow."

there is a strong possibility i'll be on a boat in Lake Michigan and will regret those words.

Dude... I mean... DUDE. Your personal cell phone?

Nabb1: WaltzingMathilda: Nabb1: Speaking of responsibility, I should really get some work done before the weekend...

i just told a client "of course you'll be able to reach me on my cell phone tomorrow."

there is a strong possibility i'll be on a boat in Lake Michigan and will regret those words.

Dude... I mean... DUDE. Your personal cell phone?

yeah, these guys are institutional clients. the kind you take out and entertain until 4 in the morning when they're in town. not one case and out clients. 2 weeks ago we had them in for a rooftop event at wrigley field. i checked out at 3 in the morning when the champagne bottles started popping, and guys 20 years older than me were out until 5 am.

in this market, i'm always available.

WaltzingMathilda: in this market, i'm always available.

Ain't that the truth...

Nabb1: Dude... I mean... DUDE. Your personal cell phone?

I've given it to only two clients so far in my career. They both call me regularly but I generally don't answer calls if they are after 7pm.

DamnYankees: Exactly. There are plenty of people out there who you can imagine being horrible with their own finances, but having a sense of honor and duty when it comes to respecting other people. I'm not saying they are common, but its certainly possible.

I used to be horrible with my own finances, in terms of getting behind on the phone bill, electric bill-- living paycheck to paycheck. At the same time, I had a friend who would literally 'bank' money with me to keep himself from spending it. I'd never touch his money, he always got it back whenever he asked for it.

I do think that a lawyer who's heavily in bad, defaulting debt isn't a good thing. Whatever you may think about the ethics of non-payment of loans-- I think if he's applying to become a lawyer he can hardly argue that he didn't get what the loans paid for-- the position of being heavily in debt, in a defaulted state, makes you very vulnerable, it can tend to push lawyers, who always have temptation of corruption, into corruption.

Now that is not, really, judging people on a general, rather than an individual basis. It's saying, "You, this individual, have placed yourself in an awkward, uncomfortable, and dangerous situation, and therefore have made yourself vulnerable to corruption-- in addition to casting doubts on your ability to be trusted in financial matters."

Now I certainly think that he should be able to speak his case, to make an argument, and that that argument should be public. But I, personally, have no problem with people who want to be lawyers having to be held to a higher standard-- as long as it's 'higher', and not just 'this particular' standard. However, I don't think you can argue that there is any realist set of standards whereby defaulting on loans is morally neutral.

KaponoFor3: Nabb1: Dude... I mean... DUDE. Your personal cell phone?

I've given it to only two clients so far in my career. They both call me regularly but I generally don't answer calls if they are after 7pm.

Have a look at Google Voice: that way you can give them the Voice number, it'll forward to either your work or cell according to your secret scheduling, including custom voice mail messages, voice mail transcription, etc.

Very well said, Obdicut.

DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

I've known a lot of douchey lawyers that are worse than this guy...and they are still allowed to practice.

I don't get this:

FTA: In April the judges rejected the committee's recommendation and ruled Mr. Bowman could not be a lawyer. Michael J. Novack, the clerk of the court that handled Mr. Bowman's application, declined to comment specifically on his case.

"Generally speaking, if the committee on character and fitness recommends admission of an applicant, the court approves of it," Mr. Novack said. "But not always."

So did the Committee on Character and Fitness recommend he become a lawyer but some judges that look over the case deny it? That's what this sounds like.

Nabb1: They guy didn't pay a freaking dime in 26 years. Not one.

Details are missing. Has he been a professional student?

If you know how to work the system, you can keep your student loans in good standing and in forbearance for a very, very long time.

Twenty-six years sounds like a long time, but with forbearance periods in there, it's easily doable for a bachelors, masters, and JD.

There is nothing in the article that says his loans aren't in good standing. That's the kicker. WE NEED DETAILS!!!!

what_now: No. No it isn't. This guy is in default of a federal loan.

Where does it say that he's in default?

SchlingFocker: Nabb1: They guy didn't pay a freaking dime in 26 years. Not one.

Details are missing. Has he been a professional student?

Professional students should be barred from the profession. If you are a student for two and a half decades, you should have tenure somewhere.

Nabb1: SchlingFocker: Nabb1: They guy didn't pay a freaking dime in 26 years. Not one.

Details are missing. Has he been a professional student?

Professional students should be barred from the profession. If you are a student for two and a half decades, you should have tenure somewhere.fark, he should be selling his own textbooks at that point. though i don't know if Con Law I by "Guy who took the bar 4 times" is going to sell all that well.

Nabb1: Professional students should be barred from the profession. If you are a student for two and a half decades, you should have tenure somewhere.

I've seen quite a few people who have stretched their educational career into the decades without going into default on their loans. They go to school for a semester or two full-time, get their forbearance period renewed, work full-time, go back for a semester or two, rinse and repeat.

I think it's kind of a waste of life, but my main disagreement is with the people here who are saying that he's in default when nothing in the article says that he's in default.

If he's been going to school off-and-on full time for the past 20-something years, that's one thing. If he simply hasn't paid, that's another.

The article doesn't state what the case is.

SchlingFocker: what_now: No. No it isn't. This guy is in default of a federal loan.

Where does it say that he's in default?

Why would it be in collections if he didn't default?

Obdicut: However, I don't think you can argue that there is any realist set of standards whereby defaulting on loans is morally neutral.

Considering that health insurance companies have armies of lawyers whose job is to figure out ways to weasel out of contracts with their customers, I don't think the legal profession can hold much high ground in the realm of fulfilling contractual obligations.

Ryan2065: Why would it be in collections if he didn't default?

Nowhere in the article does it say that it's in collections.

SchlingFocker: Ryan2065: Why would it be in collections if he didn't default?

Nowhere in the article does it say that it's in collections.

You have to follow the nondescript link at the bottom of the Kos piece to find out that little detail that is oddly missing from the Kos article.

SchlingFocker: Ryan2065: Why would it be in collections if he didn't default?

Nowhere in the article does it say that it's in collections.

At the bottom of the Daily KOS article there is a link to the real article. In the real article:

Sallie Mae transferred Mr. Bowman's private student loans, the ones not guaranteed by the federal government, to a collection agency, which tacked on a 25 percent fee. That agency transferred the loan again, and he said the next collection agency tacked on another 25 percent fee. Sallie Mae denied this, saying he was charged the fee only once. But suddenly, Mr. Bowman found that he owed more than $400,000.

Come on, most blogs link to the real story that is full of the information they leave out. This isn't anything new.

...a good start?

thomps: anyone that is willing to disregard almost a half a million dollars worth of loans for a quarter of a century probably doesn't have the strongest ethics with regard to financial dealings.

A lack of ethics and experience farking someone out of money for decades? Sounds like he'd be perfect as a lawyer for a big insurance company.

Lamune_Baba: thomps: anyone that is willing to disregard almost a half a million dollars worth of loans for a quarter of a century probably doesn't have the strongest ethics with regard to financial dealings.

A lack of ethics and experience farking someone out of money for decades? Sounds like he'd be perfect as a lawyer for a big insurance company.

Hey-OH!

that is stupid. if anything they should let him get to work ASAP.

Nabb1: Nabb1: I kind of feel sorry for the guy, but maybe you chose the wrong vocation, pal.

Wait...

"The size of this account is extremely unusual, but not surprising given that the customer took out 32 loans to pursue undergraduate, law and masters of law studies and has not made a single monthly payment over his 26-year student loan history."

Okay, I retract any semblance of pity.

You guys are making it sound like he is a deadbeat. The way the loans work is that you dont have to pay them back until you are done with your schooling.

Now here is this man who has gotten through law school and they are preventing him from doing the very thing that could allow him to move forward and clear these debts?

Did you forget about the "four tries" part? Didn't someone pass this exam on their first try without going to law school after just studying for two weeks?

mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: A fiduciary duty is a pretty commonsense term, and it refers to whenever you have contractual obligations pertaining to finances.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this. That's not what a fiduciary duty is from everything I've learned.

You can be pretty sure all you want; you're mistaken. In the context of character and fitness, you have a fiduciary duty to your debtors to make reasonable efforts to satisfy your debt. It's a contracted-to element of your loan.

You're flat-out wrong.

A debt arising from a loan is not a form of fiduciary obligation.

Thus, the failure to repay a loan is not a breach of a fiduciary duty.

Suck it.

TFA: Applicant has not presently established the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law.

There are ethical requirements to becoming a lawyer? Huh... I guess all those shark jokes are just a terrible misrepresentation of the community.

/snerk

Amerika. Where we worship money.

As someone who grades the bar exam, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

It is an easy case for me. Of course he should not be admitted to the bar.


/proud of my profession

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Bingo.

I paid back every undergrad and law school student loan within five years of passing the bar, but to be honest, I really went to law school to get laid.

Gyrfalcon: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Bingo.

those jobs dont pay enough to make payments. maybe you could pay off 1500 a year or something, but thats a drop in the ocean.

To those of you who believe he should be allowed to work so he can pay off his debts: If he'd been disbarred for embezzling funds from clients, would you argue that he should be allowed to practice law again because that would be the best way for him to earn enough money to repay his victims? Same principle, really.

WTF? They're pretty determined about getting their money. How the hell did he get 32 loans without paying a cent?

DamnYankees:
Sure. He sounds like a douche. But lots of douche's practice law.

All that schooling, and still the grocers' apostrophe.

cfish78: Gyrfalcon: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Bingo.

those jobs dont pay enough to make payments. maybe you could pay off 1500 a year or something, but thats a drop in the ocean.

I think the point is they want to see some effort on his part to show he recognizes his financial obligation. No payment for 26 years is a pretty good sign you don't intend to attempt to pay back any of the loan.

Nutsac_Jim: You guys are making it sound like he is a deadbeat. The way the loans work is that you dont have to pay them back until you are done with your schooling.

Okay... he's not a deadbeat then, he's just a retard.

I can work with that.

TFA: ...which tacked on a 25 percent fee...

Yeah, I don't care how good your collections practices are, your administrative services aren't worth $50K-$75K.

These farkers buy the loan for about half its face value, then tack their fees onto the front, so they get their profit and then some off the top before transferring your account to another agency, which tacks its fees to the front. Once you get caught up in this cycle, it's a biatch to settle things.

So if we apply Colbert's transitive property to this argument, ANY lawyer who has ever been more than 300k in debt for any specified period of time should be disbarred. Right?

bbickel: To those of you who believe he should be allowed to work so he can pay off his debts: If he'd been disbarred for embezzling funds from clients, would you argue that he should be allowed to practice law again because that would be the best way for him to earn enough money to repay his victims? Same principle, really.

You torched your staw man! Good work!

/six times the charm!

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Nutsac_Jim: You guys are making it sound like he is a deadbeat. The way the loans work is that you dont have to pay them back until you are done with your schooling.

Okay... he's not a deadbeat then, he's just a retard.

I can work with that.

He graduated law school 26 years ago and never paid his loans.

bbickel: To those of you who believe he should be allowed to work so he can pay off his debts: If he'd been disbarred for embezzling funds from clients, would you argue that he should be allowed to practice law again because that would be the best way for him to earn enough money to repay his victims? Same principle, really.

in this case, i cant see how it could hurt. you're saying he is a criminal because he was not able to repay his loans.

what I learned from this thread:

lawyers are really full of themselves

"Applicant has not made any substantial payments on the loans,"

so he has made smaller payments? substantial on a 400k loan is what? 10k? 20k?

RembrandtQEinstein: what I learned from this thread:

lawyers are really full of themselves

What else would you be full of? Since you have to be filled with something and you are yourself, I think that is the only way it would work. Right?

DamnYankees: It wouldn't be very hard for the bar to admit him saying his license is contingent on financial compliance with all loans.

Sure. Fix all your past loan issues, and you can be admitted to the bar.
But fix them first.

Don't worry Obama will bail him out and make the world right again.

FTA: Mr. Bowman concedes that he has never made a payment on his loans, partly because of medical and other deferrals and problems with his lender. But he says he intends to make good, adding that his only hope is to begin practicing law

So the guy admits he's NEVER paid a dime on his loans. In 26 years. I've got a hefty debt with Sallie Mae myself, but I've found them incredibly reasonable to deal with over the years; in the past, when my first round of student loans came due, I was in fact able to make token payments of $20-50 a month when I wasn't able to pay more. Normally they don't care how much you pay, as long as you keep in touch and try to pay something.

While it's entirely possible there was some error in transferring his private loans over to Sallie Mae, that hardly excuses him from not paying all this time.

Memo to self - never hire DamnYankees as a lawyer. Even if it's just for a parking ticket.

vroomazoom: RembrandtQEinstein: what I learned from this thread:

lawyers are really full of themselves

What else would you be full of? Since you have to be filled with something and you are yourself, I think that is the only way it would work. Right?

You should ask your mom... I'm sure she has some alternative theories.

RembrandtQEinstein: what I learned from this thread:

lawyers are really full of themselves

are you kidding? we're in the service industry, paid by the hour.

discussing holding our ranks to a certain ethical standard doesn't make us full of ourselves. read the rules of professional conduct, i think you'd agree with them.

budsterr: Don't worry Obama will bail him out and make the world right again.

i don't think that's grounded in history or reason.

/don't worry, someone will think you're clever

budsterr: Don't worry Obama will bail him out and make the world right again.

i think you're clever.

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Again - so what? This is stupid moralizing on the part of the Bar.

No, it's not. The fact that he has a massive amount of personal debt means he has a massive incentive for him to steal from his clients. Stealing from clients (whether by embezzlement or by billing for work not performed) happens to be the most common reason that attorneys get permanently disbarred.

Add to that the fact that he has no regard for his own contractual relationships, and you get a guy who has no business being in any sort of fiduciary relationship where he is given charge of a client's funds.

If you ask me, this policy is not only a sound one, but it also prevents clients from being adversely affected.

Plus the dude took 4 tries to pass the bar exam. He's MINIMALLY competent on his very BEST day, which was probably the day he took the MBE the one time he actually passed it.

DamnYankees: Even if you think this guy is a douche, this is still a stupid decision. How the hell is he supposed to repay those loans if he's barred from from doing the job which would give him a salary?

If you don't eat your meat you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

obviously he's more qualified to practice in the field of finance... than law... or maybe he should be in politics... given the size of his cojones... he's certainly qualified for that. (throw in a couple of divorces and affairs, of course) probably never paid any of those 'voluntary' income taxes either...

bbickel: To those of you who believe he should be allowed to work so he can pay off his debts: If he'd been disbarred for embezzling funds from clients, would you argue that he should be allowed to practice law again because that would be the best way for him to earn enough money to repay his victims? Same principle, really.

Yes: That's known as justice. The alternative is mere punishment, and it is lazy and unsafe.

As long as this man is supervised, he should be allowed to make good on his debt. He did have the gumption to try four times; that shows a great deal of character, in my opinion. He might simply be unable to apply himself enthusiastically elsewhere - it happens. Punishment and unproductive restriction are as useless in career matters as they are in parenting a child or with respect to schooling. Guidance to independence takes effort.

If people simply don't care about real justice, let them "just" say so and dispense with the merely retributive arguments dressed as ethics.

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?



Agrees.

barefoot in the head: bbickel: To those of you who believe he should be allowed to work so he can pay off his debts: If he'd been disbarred for embezzling funds from clients, would you argue that he should be allowed to practice law again because that would be the best way for him to earn enough money to repay his victims? Same principle, really.

Yes: That's known as justice. The alternative is mere punishment, and it is lazy and unsafe.

As long as this man is supervised, he should be allowed to make good on his debt. He did have the gumption to try four times; that shows a great deal of character, in my opinion. He might simply be unable to apply himself enthusiastically elsewhere - it happens. Punishment and unproductive restriction are as useless in career matters as they are in parenting a child or with respect to schooling. Guidance to independence takes effort.

If people simply don't care about real justice, let them "just" say so and dispense with the merely retributive arguments dressed as ethics.

it takes an unbelievably minimal amount of communication from sallie mae to keep your loans from going into collection. the part in the article where he says he didn't hear from them for 2 years? please ... people who are owed money don't sit around for 2 years and then start trying to find you. plus, it's not like he forgot he borrowed over 200k.

in other words, real justice happened. an organization that demands responsible behavior declined admission to an irresponsible person

Gyrfalcon: FTA: Mr. Bowman concedes that he has never made a payment on his loans, partly because of medical and other deferrals and problems with his lender. But he says he intends to make good, adding that his only hope is to begin practicing law

So the guy admits he's NEVER paid a dime on his loans. In 26 years. I've got a hefty debt with Sallie Mae myself, but I've found them incredibly reasonable to deal with over the years; in the past, when my first round of student loans came due, I was in fact able to make token payments of $20-50 a month when I wasn't able to pay more. Normally they don't care how much you pay, as long as you keep in touch and try to pay something.

While it's entirely possible there was some error in transferring his private loans over to Sallie Mae, that hardly excuses him from not paying all this time.

Really? Before I went back to school, Sallie Mae told me I had to pay the monthly payments in full despite the fact I wasn't making enough at the time.

Phinn: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: A fiduciary duty is a pretty commonsense term, and it refers to whenever you have contractual obligations pertaining to finances.

You're flat-out wrong.

A debt arising from a loan is not a form of fiduciary obligation.

Thus, the failure to repay a loan is not a breach of a fiduciary duty.

Suck it.

Yep. DamnYankees and Phinn are correct. Debtors do not have "Fiduciary" responsibilities. mattharvest should look the word up.

considering how over-saturated the legal profession is right now, and how much more saturated it will become in the next few years, he is better off going into some other area.

[amending DamnYankees' Farky note to read: "thinks a 26-year student-loan deadbeat is worthy to practice law, is also idiot"]

MrsYankees: "hey honey..."
damnYankees: "yes dear."
MrsYankees: "the baby sitter looks familiar..."
damnYankees: "oh yeah, it's that guy that was in the news for molesting his children, and making them work in that sex ring"
MrsYankees: "what? how could we leave them with a man like that!"
damnYankees: "honey...give the man a chance, he's never whored out someone else's children...just his own. He deserves a shot"

cry0fan: considering how over-saturated the legal profession is right now, and how much more saturated it will become in the next few years, he is better off going into some other area.

Which area?

The only job sectors that I see opening up in the next few years are mercenaries, warlords and professional revolutionaries.

I know the guy was sick for a while but he was well enough physically and financially to go to school. I don't think there was any alternative other than holding up his liscense.

How in the world can you go that long and not pay student loans? I was late for a while (about a year or so when I was out of work) and the state attorney general's office was all over my ass. I had to work it out or they were gonna screw me.

Not fit to practice law, has no ethical standards. I vote for a life of poverty and dying alone in a pool of urine.

WaltzingMathilda: in other words, real justice happened. an organization that demands responsible behavior declined admission to an irresponsible person

The loans agency, which might have seen a glimmer of hope that their loans could be recouped, might not call that real justice, which seeks to satisfy all parties as best as it might. The man could be supervised - he did pass the test. Of course, the appearance of irresponsibility is a real mark against his character - maybe he could work as a law clerk to test his willingness to make good. I just think something is better than mere nothing. It seems lazy and fatalistic.

Yeah. This guy was basically screwed on admission to law school. It's a shame that law schools do not do a better job before admission of vetting students who won't be able to practice. At minimum, there should be much better preliminary education about the substantial costs and risks associated with law school.

I know plenty of people who would be fit to be lawyers but are excluded for having missed just a few MBEs. I feel more pity for them than this guy. Apparently, in order to evoke the pity of the New York Times, it is better to be a colossal screw up.

"Applicant has not presently established the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law."

What's the problem? Do they think he's intelligent, helpful, and honest?

TheSignPost: Not fit to practice law, has no ethical standards. I vote for a life of poverty and dying alone in a pool of urine.

Sounds like Friday night around here...

Well-read Baron:

Plus the dude took 4 tries to pass the bar exam. He's MINIMALLY competent on his very BEST day, which was probably the day he took the MBE the one time he actually passed it.



JFK Jr. took the bar 3 times before he passed.


/just sayin'
//'course, he's feeding the fishies now.

It's kinda like the people who can't get hired because of their low credit rating. If you owe any large amount of money, they assume you're a criminal that should be deported to a different continent instead of hired.

deadapostle: You know you must be a real piece of shiat if your character isn't up to the standards required to be a lawyer.

THIS. I thought you had to show you were a crooked piece of shiat to become a lawyer. Who knew?

SALLIE MAE IS A CRUEL, CRUEL biatch.

i hate her so

They should send him to a small, lawyer-less town in Alaska where he's has to work off his debt. It would be filled with eccentrics and natives and he would complain a lot but ultimately realize it's where he's happiest.

he's trying to be a lawyer not an accountant right?

Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare: I know the guy was sick for a while but he was well enough physically and financially to go to school. I don't think there was any alternative other than holding up his liscense.

Sallie Mae must be really anal about repayment but 26 years? He could have had a kid that already graduated from college in that time. My student loans took a while to pay off but this guy must have completely ignored repayment assistance. Mine I've had in forebearance from unemployment a couple times, just pay the interest. There was even a clause for serious illness, possible reduction thereof, incarceration.... And I've even refinanced under various government programs (which increased the interest) that cut my monthly payments almost in half, so it was kind of a wash....

So in other words, he didn't do jack shiat on repayment. For 26 years. He may or may not be unethical, he sure as hell is lazy. And never asked a single question about whether such a situation could arise.

celery_stalker: he's trying to be a lawyer not an accountant right?

It's been said that law is the only well-paying career path that doesn't require math skills.

fanbladesaresharp: Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare: I know the guy was sick for a while but he was well enough physically and financially to go to school. I don't think there was any alternative other than holding up his liscense.

Sallie Mae must be really anal about repayment but 26 years? He could have had a kid that already graduated from college in that time. My student loans took a while to pay off but this guy must have completely ignored repayment assistance. Mine I've had in forebearance from unemployment a couple times, just pay the interest. There was even a clause for serious illness, possible reduction thereof, incarceration.... And I've even refinanced under various government programs (which increased the interest) that cut my monthly payments almost in half, so it was kind of a wash....

So in other words, he didn't do jack shiat on repayment. For 26 years. He may or may not be unethical, he sure as hell is lazy. And never asked a single question about whether such a situation could arise.

I completely agree. The guy went back to school when he could have gone back to work for a while.

More proof that banks own and control everything.

Wait, isn't Obama going to pay for my student loans?

thomps: Jmast7: Ingaba: It sounds like there are arseholes on both sides of this situation.

This. Why not let the guy practice law with the stipulation that when he gets a job he wages will be garnished to repay the loans? Preventing him from getting a job seems lose-lose for both sides.

what makes you think that he'll pay back his student loans now? let's be honest, anyone that is decades out of law school and took 4 attempts to pass the bar probably isn't getting hired by big law. 23 years of defaulting on student loans is a pretty serious disregard for one's commitments and shouldn't be excused by the bar association.

I don't think you understand what the word "garnish" means...

I don't feel like quoting, but:

Lawyers are not federally licensed, what_now. As far as I know there's no automatic disqualification from practicing law due to default on a federal loan. It's a factor in your character and fitness examination.

Defaulting on a loan is not breach of a fiduciary duty.

If anyone bothered to read the NYTimes article, the NY Bar character and fitness examination committee recommended that he be allowed to practice. In a rare move, the judges panel that actually approves admission disagreed with the panel's recommendation. The abridged Daily Kos version leaves out the extenuating circumstances that the applicant claims and the NY Bar committee found persuasive. There's more to this than that the applicant completely ignored his loans for 26 years.

dave2198: I don't think you understand what the word "garnish" means...

no you're right. i've never heard of the word "garnish," nor, apparently has sallie mae. you should write them a letter.

Nicholas Urfe: If anyone bothered to read the NYTimes article, the NY Bar character and fitness examination committee recommended that he be allowed to practice. In a rare move, the judges panel that actually approves admission disagreed with the panel's recommendation. The abridged Daily Kos version leaves out the extenuating circumstances that the applicant claims and the NY Bar committee found persuasive. There's more to this than that the applicant completely ignored his loans for 26 years.

of course there are extenuating circumstances. you can't dodge making a single loan payment in 26 years without putting together some pretty sweet excuses, which is why he's appealing the decision. i don't think this guy should be expecting a whole lot of sympathy though, and he certainly shouldn't have expected to cruise though character and fitness without some static.

More likely than not, all these negative comments have more to do with righteous lawyer hate than the fact that he hasn't paid back his school loans.

Frankly, it doesn't seem like any of you know what it is like to have so much federal debt that it's impossible to pay off. Either you are all without debt or are clearly making enough money in your chosen profession to be able to pay it off. I am not that fortunate. After my masters degree I have accumulated close to $100,000 in federal loan debt that I have virtually no chance of repaying at my current hourly wage. They call it "hardship deferment" for a reason, folks. I'd gladly pay back my loans in full were I able to afford it. Unfortunately, what most of you fail to understand is that for people like me, who fall below the minimum annual wage and live paycheck to paycheck, loan repayment is the last thing we have to worry about.

Forget the money or his character--I'm just glad there's not another lawyer.

consciousNOT: Forget the money or his character--I'm just glad there's not another lawyer.

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: In 26 years he couldn't have bagged groceries or dug a ditch to make payments?

Again - so what? This is stupid moralizing on the part of the Bar.

Yeah, but you are probably one of the first to complain about what crooks and scum lawyers are. He has made no effort to pay back the loan. That is what happens to loans when you don't pay them and interest collects: they get frigging huge.

timmy242: More likely than not, all these negative comments have more to do with righteous lawyer hate than the fact that he hasn't paid back his school loans.

Frankly, it doesn't seem like any of you know what it is like to have so much federal debt that it's impossible to pay off. Either you are all without debt or are clearly making enough money in your chosen profession to be able to pay it off. I am not that fortunate. After my masters degree I have accumulated close to $100,000 in federal loan debt that I have virtually no chance of repaying at my current hourly wage. They call it "hardship deferment" for a reason, folks. I'd gladly pay back my loans in full were I able to afford it. Unfortunately, what most of you fail to understand is that for people like me, who fall below the minimum annual wage and live paycheck to paycheck, loan repayment is the last thing we have to worry about.

Don't go to an expensive school to major in Gameboy if your folks aren't paying the way.

KaponoFor3: Ain't the Moral Character examination a biatch.

How the hell did John Edwards pass it?

barefoot in the head: WaltzingMathilda: in other words, real justice happened. an organization that demands responsible behavior declined admission to an irresponsible person

The loans agency, which might have seen a glimmer of hope that their loans could be recouped, might not call that real justice, which seeks to satisfy all parties as best as it might. The man could be supervised - he did pass the test. Of course, the appearance of irresponsibility is a real mark against his character - maybe he could work as a law clerk to test his willingness to make good. I just think something is better than mere nothing. It seems lazy and fatalistic.

You're forgetting that those loans are backed by the government. That is why bankruptcy can't get rid of them (if it could, I would go Chapter 7 in a blink of an eye if I were him), but is also why they feel no need to work with him. In a while, our taxes will pay the bill. Obama will be happy.

holy cheesecake: Gyrfalcon: FTA: Mr. Bowman concedes that he has never made a payment on his loans, partly because of medical and other deferrals and problems with his lender. But he says he intends to make good, adding that his only hope is to begin practicing law

So the guy admits he's NEVER paid a dime on his loans. In 26 years. I've got a hefty debt with Sallie Mae myself, but I've found them incredibly reasonable to deal with over the years; in the past, when my first round of student loans came due, I was in fact able to make token payments of $20-50 a month when I wasn't able to pay more. Normally they don't care how much you pay, as long as you keep in touch and try to pay something.

Really? Before I went back to school, Sallie Mae told me I had to pay the monthly payments in full despite the fact I wasn't making enough at the time.

Really. Yes, I got told that once too. After hiding a few years in fear & horror, I called them back...and the woman I spoke to then told me that was ridiculous, that they'd much rather be receiving something than nothing. She was the one who got my balance cut in half so I could pay it off.

Was it around the late 80's? I'm wondering if some kind of demon accountant agency was working for them then. They've been much easier to deal with since then.

DamnYankees: Yeah, and I generally think its dumb. But this isn't a 'moral' issue. This is financial stuff between a guy and his bank.

Don't forget us. You don't think a portion of that 400K isn't owed to the taxpayer?

This guy has no intention of paying those loans. It speaks to his character. It isn't a moral issue, it's an ethics issue. He has not made one effort to meet his part of the contract.

timmy242: rankly, it doesn't seem like any of you know what it is like to have so much federal debt that it's impossible to pay off. Either you are all without debt or are clearly making enough money in your chosen profession to be able to pay it off. I am not that fortunate. After my masters degree I have accumulated close to $100,000 in federal loan debt that I have virtually no chance of repaying at my current hourly wage. They call it "hardship deferment" for a reason, folks. I'd gladly pay back my loans in full were I able to afford it. Unfortunately, what most of you fail to understand is that for people like me, who fall below the minimum annual wage and live paycheck to paycheck, loan repayment is the last thing we have to worry about.

Of course the government failed you. Clearly they should have done a better job explaining the amount of money you would owe and the likely-hood you'd find a job that could actually pay that debt. How can someone expect you to sign a piece of paper that says you own over 100K and think that as a college graduate you would understand or could figure out how much debt that really is.

In all my years of reading Fark, I have found only two things that 99.999% of Farkers agree on: 1) Fred Phelps is an arsehole, and 2) so is this guy.

/give it up, D. Yankee