"chicken" is to "egg" as "law license" is to "loan repayment"

I can hardly handle this article:  Law Grad with No Plan to Repay Debt Fails Character and Fitness Mandate.  My blood is boiling.

A law graduate, working part time at the public defenders office for $12 an hour, was denied a law license for failure to meet the "character and fitness" requirement because he has no "plan" to pay back the $200,000 he owes on his loans.  You have GOT to be kidding me.

Here is the entire Opinion:


Ohio legal opinion

Now, I understand that people are saying... "But wait, this guy failed the Bar 3 times before this??  Hm... that's suspect."  Also, the Court faults him for merely working part-time and uses that as partial justification for finding him "morally unfit."  Excuse me?  This man has been studying for the Bar Exam(s) for the last 2.5 years, while also working part-time.  We all know how studying for the Bar is a full-time job.  We've all seen the statistics that say if you're working while studying for the Bar, your chances of passing decrease tremendously.  Lots of us took out even MORE loans to be able to support ourselves while we studied for the Bar full-time.  This guy, however, is working part-time at the PD's office (which...let's be honest... can't really be "part-time."  I've seen friends work "part-time" for the Public Defender, and it was, at the very least, all consuming) while he studies for the Bar.  And I can only imagine that the stress increases tenfold with every Bar failure.

So you mean to tell me, Ohio Board of Commissioners... that, in order to start paying on his loans, you want this guy, who has already demonstrated how effing DIFFICULT the Bar Exam is for him (and it wasn't a cake walk for the rest of us either) to take on a full-time job, thereby cutting the amount of time he has to study for the next Bar exam in half?  And that will then fix his character and make him "fit to be a lawyer"?  REALLY??

Not to mention, the Opinion seems to turn its nose up at the fact that he has a 9 year old daughter and lives with her and her mother (translation: they're not married, but they have a child together and live together), and the baby-momma essentially supports him.  Um, yeah...  Of course she does.  You think he supports himself AND pays to apply for and take the Bar Exam three times (that's not a cheap process folks) on his $12 an hour part-time job?  And wait... is the panel actually making a left-handed comment about how he hasn't bought a ring and thrown a wedding.  I mean, reallly?

Furthermore, the Opinion scoffs at his suggestion that perhaps he would file for Bankruptcy (aka, demonstrate a "plan") by noting: "...the panel observed that the only debt that could be distinguished in a bankruptcy proceeding would be the applicant's $16,500 in consumer debt, as the applicant's $170,000 in student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  Noting that the applicant has no plan or ability to pay these debts, the panel recommended that his application be denied..." 

I would also like to mention here that it's pretty darn impressive that this guy ONLY has 16 grand in consumer debt.  Do the math.  He works part-time, so that means 20 hours a week for $12/hour... so he makes $240/week before taxes... and let's call it $900/month after taxes.  Now spread the 16.5 K in credit card debt over those three years.  That means he has been living on his "salary" of $10,800 a year + about 5.5 K in credit card debt each year.  So $16,300.  He has been living on $16,300 a year while working for the Public Defender (which is not like working at Barnes and Noble for $12/hour people... there's a little bit more stress involved.  Lives are at stake... not to mention, like for all of us in our first couple years of practice... there's A LOT to learn.)  And he studied for the Bar... not once, but three times.  For those who aren't lawyers, when you're studying for the Bar Exam, every meal is take-out or delivery.  There are impulsive purchases that can only be explained by the insane amount of stress.  I spent 15 K in four months while studying for the Bar Exam and applying for jobs (no, I'm not proud of that).  Granted, that included rent, study courses, a flight home and meals... but I'm just saying, $16.5 K over three years?  Hey Board of Commissioners...You have to have a PLAN to sustain that kind of lifestyle.

If I'm reading this correctly, the message that is being conveyed here is:  Sorry, but you don't have a "plan" to pay back your debt.  We can tell you don't have a plan because you haven't taken on a full-time, well-paying job.  We don't care that you're not a licensed attorney yet.  In fact, we're not going to let you become a licensed attorney, which (in theory) would facilitate the process of getting a well-paying (ok, better than $12/hour) job, until you've started paying some of your debt.  Oh, you have a family to support?  Well from the looks of it, they're supporting you (and you're not even married).  Oh, and that thought you had about filing for BK... yeah, that's not going to help your cause either.  So basically, dude, your only option is to get a better job.  Only you'll be competing with all those other unemployed lawyers (who actually passed the Bar Exam and have a license).  So... yeah, good luck with that.

This article is just another example of how pompous, self-righteous and out-of-touch the American Bar Association (both in the sense of the actual association and the conglomerate of lawyers who have been practicing for the last 5 years and sit on "Boards of Commissioners" and law school faculties) is.  Get over yourselves.  People are STRUGGLING, and now, you have the audacity to say that their inability to pay back their student loans not only means they should be denied a license to practice law, but you're also going to use it to attack their CHARACTER and MORAL FITNESS? 

I only thought I was angry before...