How’s this for legal reasoning? A judge refused a woman’s request for discharge of her student loans in part because she had been offered a job at a bank for $80,000. HOWEVER, because she had bad credit due to her loans, the bank withdrew the job offer. Unfortunately, the court didn’t find that it was “helpful to debtor’s case.”
Anyone who has a student loan had just better get used to bending over and really enjoying it, because the courts are not about to give anyone with a law degree a fresh start. Read it and weep:
 In this case, Debtor is a young, single woman with no dependents. She has an undergraduate degree and a law degree. She suffers from no physical or mental impairment to her ability to earn a living commensurate with her level of education. She has held several responsible positions as a paralegal for which she has been paid significant compensation. For example, in the position that she held at the time of trial, her annual salary was $51,500.00. According to her own testimony, a bank had offered her a position at an annual salary of $80,000.00.FN8
In short, Debtor is well educated, has acquired marketable skills in the legal field, enjoys good health and is not saddled with dependent care obligations that would prevent her from pursuing future employment. These attributes preclude her from proving that, for reasons beyond her control, she suffers from a total incapacity in the future to pay her student loan debts.
FN8.The fact that the bank withdrew the offer when Debtor revealed her personal financial situation is not helpful to Debtor’s case. Her financial situation is not a circumstance beyond her control.
You have to admire this student’s balls, because you won’t be able to admire his brains. I never thought I would agree with a judgment for a law school, but this student seems to be reaching a bit here.
A student at one of our favorite New York toilets, NYLS, sued the school when he received a C in his first year writing course. In a move that can best be described as bowl jumping, he transferred from Hofstra to NYLS. He claimed that he was disadvantaged because he was a transfer student, and asked that the law school change its grading system from letter grades to a pass / fail system, similar to Yale Law. He must have thought he was transferring to NYU, not NYLS. Well, he had the first two letters right.
The C student also claimed NYLS didn’t act in good faith and fair dealing and thus breached an implied contract with him. I’ll agree that NYLS doesn’t act in good faith often, (if ever), but this seems a little ridiculous to me. Wonder what he would have done if they had given him a D?
The law school toilet war in Massachusetts is getting ugly. Three toilet competitors, New England School of Law, Western New England Law School and Suffolk, have been spending large amounts of money lobbying against the potential UMass merger with Southern New England School of Law and have been accused by state Rep. John Quinn of “joining forces to fix the market.”
Well, toilet schools are big business, and our friends in Massachusetts aren’t going to let just any toilet into the cartel without a fight. It’s all about the money, never about education. Just keep printing those worthless diplomas and cashing those tuition checks.
The most popular loan repayment plan is to leave the country. Those who would rather leave the country than pay their loans edged out the folks who prefer to pay by IBR (income based repayment) by just one vote.
Top defense lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld give us another reason not to try to go solo: malpractice. The two lawyers messed up and missed a deadline a few years ago and got sued by a client. They had to pay $900,000 to the client. Ouch. That had to hurt.
For those of you considering solo practice and thinking about saving some money by skimping on malpractice insurance, you might want to think again.