Hacker News Reader

Comment by reader5000 | Hacker News Reader

For people who don't understand, they are denying him admission based on his decision to stay on at the public defender instead of quiting and finding likely nonexistent higher paying work to service his exorbitant albeit average student loan debt. This is completely unacceptable micromanaging by the Ohio Supreme Court here and if I were the guy I would keep fighting this. Character and fitness deals merely with a person's honesty and likelihood of not abusing the legal system; not his personal decisions regarding his personal finances that are in no way unusual for a law school graduate. Apparently the members of the OSC graduated 40 years ago when law school tuition was $400/yr. This case is ridiculous; there must be thousands of people in his exact position who passed readily.

View on HN

From the article it seems that he's made no payment on his loan at all, even though he had a job and no substantial outgoings, but rather defaulted. He tried to declare bankruptcy to clear his loan rather than trying to pay it off.

That is an attempt to abuse the legal system.

I don't understand your comment. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

They cannot. He was trying to anyways. Quoting the article which is quoting the court:

  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.

> they are denying him admission based on his decision to stay on at the public defender instead of quiting and finding likely nonexistent higher paying work to service his exorbitant albeit average student loan debt.

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.

That isn't illegal or immoral.

True, but the theory behind character and fitness tests is that if he is desperate for money with which to repay his debts, he may be more susceptible to coercion, blackmail, and criminal elements.

Ah, so the rich automatically have 'character and fitness' and are immune to corruption. Makes sense.

I would say it's immoral to ignore your debt obligations, yes. He went through a program that cost a lot of money, and which he promised to pay for over time. He's not a victim here. One can't always choose to do whatever they prefer, especially when in debt to others.

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.

But the catch 22 is that he can't work as a lawyer until he passes the bar...

But he can do other things that will help him pay of his debt until he passes the bar and then work as a lawyer.

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.

I agree with you 100%, but the comment to which I was responding seemed to be suggesting that he solve his debt problems by choosing to work as a more profitable sort of attorney (as opposed to a public defender). Until he passes the bar, those specific options will be closed to him.

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.

My understanding of the story was that he was not going to be able to pass the bar because of his plans to try and get out of his debt by ways other than paying it back, even though he assumed he would pass the bar? Might be wrong, it was a bit hard to dig through the outraged writing.

Moral? No. He's has a contract with a financial company. Do you think they would behave morally if it meant giving up a dollar?

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.

Unless you were coerced or the contract came into being in some other illegitimate way, you certainly have a moral obligation to fulfill any promise you make, contract or otherwise.

<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.

> you certainly have a moral obligation to fulfill any promise you make

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.

There's a big confusion between morals and ethics, and they are often used interchangeably, which is what some of the posts to which you are replying have done.

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.

Not quite accurate. The problem was that the dude wasn't trying to seek full-time employment as a public defender.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com