From the Bottom to the Top and Back to the Bottom Again.

The following is a comment that was left on a recent post and I thought it was worth re-publishing a tail for the the weary:

I was denied my law license in Illinois for 7 years because I was unable to pay even the minimum payment for my student loans. I eventually enlisted the help (because I certainly couldn't pay his fees) of a solo practitioner who suggested I consistently make a payment to the loan holders and keep a record of those payments. Every six months or so I kept petitioning the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee to reconsider my application. I sat - alone - before a literal tribunal of attorneys, all physically seated higher than the chair reserved for the applicant, and was insultingly told I would never receive my license unless I could get some "rich relative" to pay my loans. What rich relative? My parents' home is valued at less than 1/2 what my student loans have risen to be. After 7 years of rejection, 7 years of falling behind on the compound interest, of being hounded by a rotating rogue's gallery of debt collectors, of watching my law school classmates pass me by, gaining experience while I languished in a legal editorship, I finally broke through to some sypathetic someone on the committee and got my license. Now 11 years later, I've worked my way up through the associate ranks of a mid-sized Chicago firm. I had been groomed for the last year as the next potential partner. My boss was telling me for a year how wonderful my prospects looked and to expect an invitation to sign on as a partner come the December 2010 reviews. Long story short: the partnership was pulled out from under me at the last possible second, not for the quality of my work, not for my aptitude, but because my long-fought troubles with student loans had somehow rendered me "financially unfit" to handle the Firm's multi-million dollar lawsuits. In other words, if I couldn't handle my own money, why should they trust me with the Firm finances? (Somehow the 6 years of killing myself to prove that I was worthy enough to consider for partnership wasn't enough.) Just weeks before the partnership determination was to be made, I received the second of 2 garnishments on my wages for my defaulted student loans. The default came to the attention of the Firm ironically through the collection counsel that the Firm uses to collect fees from delinquent clients. So, even though I had spent years dutifully paying at least something on my student loans, my career, such as it is, was once again derailed by the student loan anvil that I will apparently drag around after me for the rest of my life. I, once again, have little hope for the future. I work in "limbo" at the moment, never sure whether I will be bounced out on my ass as one of the partnership candidates who just didn't pan out. My Firm has a small army of such underlings who are all routinely treated with disdain and shoveled shit cases/files to discourage their continuing at the Firm. I want to leave, but honestly probably won't be able to secure another job anywhere nearby that might pay me the meager salary that I already do collect. Stupidly, I went trolling sites online that compared the salaries of 1st year associates in the Chicagoland area. Six years into my job at this Firm, I still don't make the 1st year salaries of most of the top-rated, top tier firms. I just don't know what to do.

I am not sure what you're supposed to do at this point.  In my opinion, if what you've told me is true, you've proven yourself to be a competent attorney--you may even be excellent.  It's a great accomplishment to be offered partnership.  I can't believe the partners at your firm reneged.  It's a shame that they can't see past your financial woes.  I wonder... What if one of the partners lost everything in a divorce because he was irresponsible and married his money-grubbing secretary without a pre-nuptual agreement.  What if a lawyer had a garnishment for child support?  Babies happen, yes--but isn't a child out of wedlock the epitome of irresponsibility?  What if a lawyer were sued as a result of a simple car accident?  Where is the line?  
Apparently, it's with student loans.  
The divine irony is that young people sign their lives away at about the same time they max out their first Discovery Card.  But, unlike the credit card debt, they can't shake the student loans.  Think long and hard before you pull out student loans.  It's not something you worry about later.  It's the gift that keeps giving, much like herpes.  Just when you think the flare ups are done, it comes back at the most inopportune times.  
Wait!  I have an idea.  Do your parents have any organs they can donate?  Do you?  Apparently, parents of an indebted college grad offered up their organs on craigslist for $200,000.00  (Thanks Tipster!) That's a real parental contribution that FAFSA doesn't take into account.  I remember, when times were good, reading about Indian people that sold their organs to marry off their daughters. The concept was so alien to me.  Not anymore.  It's right up there with selling eggs to infertile rich people--or the use of your womb for 9 months.  In other words, if there is a market for organs--American's will reconsider the utility of that other kidney in the very near future.

Anyone know where I can sign up for Cairo style protests?  We're long overdue.

Debt a Bar to Admission? How?

I'm sure you all have read JJD's story about the New Hampshire Lawyer-never-to-be, who was barred from the bar because of "debt and a few criminal indiscretions"--but this story takes the cake and may affect every single last one of my readers.

Hassan Jonathan Griffin, a law school graduate, and a former stock broker with a mere $170K in school loans and $16,500 in credit card debt, was denied entry to the Ohio bar because of.... drumroll please....

...his debt!

No joke!

Since his second year of law school, he has worked part-time at a public defender’s office earning $12 per hour.  He has therefore been unable to make payments on his student loans or meet his obligations on his credit card debt.  Given his financial situation, Griffin apparently considered bankruptcy, which would discharge his credit card debt but leave his $170,000 in education loans, which are nondischargeable debts.

The Ohio Bar found and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that Griffin’s lack of a plan or ability to pay his debts is grounds for denial of his application due to lack of character and fitness.

Wow.  Doesn't that hit everyone where it hurts!  He's not even working as a stripper or a drug dealer!  He's working at the only legal job he could find... a decent job by most unemployed law school graduates' standards, at the public defender's office.

What next?  Now, you can't get admitted because of the debt you incurred to become admitted?  What type of bullshit is this?  The author of the article, Brett Clark, had an interesting take that I need not attempt to re-word here because it is brilliant:

So let’s recap:

Law schools inflate their graduate employment data and thereby paint a false picture of post-law school job prospects.  Students then graduate with a couple hundred thousand dollars of debt to find that there is little prospect of finding meaningful legal employment.  Now, to throw a bit of salt in the wound, if a law graduate is unable to find a legal job with pay sufficient to cover said debt, his bar application can be denied on character and fitness grounds.

The Ohio Supreme Court apparently has no appreciation for the rancid state of the legal job market.  It actually faults Griffin for holding onto his part-time employment with the public defender’s office “in the hope that it will lead to a full-time position upon passage of the bar exam, rather than seeking full-time employment.”  But if public defender work is what Griffin actually wants to do with his life (recall that he was previously a successful stockbroker), then what grounds does the Ohio Supreme Court have to claim that he has an ethical obligation to go find some other kind of legal work?  Nevermind that finding full time employment is exceedingly difficult in today’s climate, especially without a license.  As the opinion notes, Griffin had taken the bar exam unsuccessfully three times.  His best prospects of landing full time employment upon successful passage are probably with the public defender officer that he’s been working with for the last four years.

Griffin’s inability to pay down his debts is not an issue of his character or fitness as a member of the bar.  The Ohio Supreme Court’s determination in this matter is not only incorrect and inconsiderate of the facts before it, but comes at the worst possible time for applicants to the state’s bar.

Mr. Griffin will surely be the first of many who will have these problems with being admitted to the Ohio Bar.