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.
