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.