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.