That is an attempt to abuse the legal system.
That's incorrect. It's because he's not...
"seeking full-time employment, which he acknowledges would give him a better opportunity to pay his obligations and possibly qualify him for an additional deferment of his student-loan obligation."
So, he admits that he could do a better job at paying his obligations and could also not default on his loan obligations. In other words...
He has already admitted that he has chosen not to work to pay back his loans.
Lawyers working for the public/non-profit sectors are granted loan forbearance of all student debt (including student debt not related to law school) after working full-time for 10 years for government agencies/non-profits/military. However, part-time work does not apply to this 10-year period. So, he would not have needed to change jobs, only his commitment to his current job.
What is the value of defending years of freedom for those people who wouldn't otherwise get legal representation, who might and spend 30 years in jail as an innocent person?
What does not paying off student loans have to do with your ability to be a lawyer?
In this case, there's also the fact that the lawyer in question tried to file bankruptcy to lower his student loan payments, and to discharge some of his credit card debt. He also decided to take on a low-paying job as a public defender -- admirable, perhaps, but in his financial situation, irrational.
The guy chose NOT to take on a job as a public defender. He took a job as a part-time public defender, paid hourly wages, instead of pursuing available full time positions in the public defender's office.
The distinction is meaningful because the federal government repays all student loans for lawyers who work in the public/non-profit sectors for 10 years in full-time positions. This is known as loan forbearance. However, it does not apply to lawyers who take on part-time jobs.
Honestly, it's neither that interesting nor that well written of an article.
Really? Is this a location issue? Because to me that sounds like the entitled moaning of a 10 year-old. The real world does not and should not care what YOU feel like doing. People are expected to behave like adults and to uphold their obligations. It's YOUR job to figure out a way to do what you love while successfully doing that - not everyone else's.
On the other hand, please correct me if I'm missing some important issue here.
I am not convinced by some of the indignant tone of the article either - maybe they have no right to tell him what he should be doing with his life, but surely the whole point of the bar exam is that they have the right to decide if he's the kind of person they want to allow to pass the bar?
… but as far as (fiscal) fitness, it’s known to be an exceptionally cheap school, so at least he tried to keep his undergrad debt to a minimum.
Not a bad dichotomy to set up if you run or own a large business.
The applicant testified that during the pendency of the
bankruptcy proceeding, the payments on his student loan
obligation would be greatly reduced. ... the panel
observed that the only debt that could be discharged in a
bankruptcy proceeding would be the applicant’s $16,500 in
consumer debt, as the applicant’s $170,000 in student
loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy.There are many startup lawyers who bill >$400/hour, and I'm sure even the lowest paid lawyers who aren't public defenders make a fairly respectable salary. Paying off 150k of student debt on the kinds of timelines those things are usually on isn't outrageous.
Just because you go for school for something doesn't mean your guaranteed a job doing just that. You go to school to learn something. Usually you use that knowledge to advance your career (or start one). However, it's unfair to demand that just because you went to school to become a lawyer (or doctor, or whatever) that people must hire you into that position.
Borrowing money from a friend is a moral obligation. That's not the same as signing a contract with a financial company that has buildings full of lawyers and accountants looking for ways to screw you.
<Quick moral theory> To be moral, an action must preserve agency of those involved. When any action is performed, a reciprocal standard of action is established. (When I do something, I am willing that it is ok for you to do it to me.) If the action in question strips another person of their moral agency, the actor initiating the action is also accepting that it is permissible to be stripped of their own agency. This is where the contradiction exists. If we authorize the removal of anothers agency, then we are authorizing the removal of our own agency as well, and thus our ability to determine morality.
Cliffs Notes: If you screw someone over, you're authorizing others to screw you over. This perverts your sense of morality and you are no longer sufficiently able to decide morality.
Furthermore, the student isn't demanding that anybody hire him as an attorney- just that they grant him the legal credentials needed to be eligible to be hired as an attorney. There's a big difference.
Morals are not absolute. Trying to apply your own expectations to others has the ability to cause a lot of grief in life.
Having paid off about $35k in student loans 2.5 years after I graduated, I do feel sympathy. It's easy to take on loans when it's just numbers on a piece of paper and one may not have earned much money up until that point. I only realised the hindrance of debt after taking it on. It can be a very tough lesson for people to learn if they have taken on too much and do not have prior experience on which to base their decisions.
This is definitely an ethical issue, which is (yes, yes, it's ironic) a cornerstone of Bar admission and the ability to practice law. Many disbarments are the result of ethical misconduct.
As an aside, he would also not be able to get a top secret security clearance, and would also be unlikely to get a secret clearance unless he had particularly amazing skills.