So he has been barred since 1983. I would say 26 years is a resonable ammount of time to PAY YO DAMN BILLS

Turd.

CHECK YOU STUDENT LOANS

Well, i'm sure after this he will have no problem paying back his lenders.

Maybe the lenders should file amicus briefs in support of his admission. Despite the crappy state of the legal job market, practicing law is his best shot at earning the money he needs to pay them back.

This is outrageous. From my understanding, Mr. Bowman did absolutely nothing criminal or even dishonest with respect to his student loans. In essence, the state of New York is preventing him from practicing his chosen profession due to the fact that he has not performed on his private contractual obligations with a private student loan provider.

Given the large amount in fees, it does not even look like he actually borrowed an unreasonable amount of money ... in fact it looks like the total amount borrowed for undergraduate and law school amounts to just north of $200,000. Above the median, yes, but not unheard of by any means.

But is there any evidence that he has resorted to theft or any other dishonest means to repay his debt? If so, why is there any reason to believe that he would in the future? What about the large number of AMLAW 200 firms that have large amounts of debt. Should we assume that they will necessarily bilk their clients to repay it?

There's no reason to think that this guy shouldn't be able to practice law. If, in the future, he does something illegal, then he will be disciplined or disbarred. That applies to everyone. Why the hell should the bar in New York be prejudging this guy when he hasn't done anything wrong?

Oops, pulled an Elie in my third paragraph. Should be "If not, why is there any reason..." not "If so."

What about the large number of AMLAW 200 firms that have large amounts of debt. Should we assume that they will necessarily bilk their clients to repay it?

Absolutely!

In this economy and with the state preventing him from even being seriously considered for the non-existent jobs we're all applying for, what exactly is this guy supposed to do to prove he wants to pay back his loans?

10 - drugs.

7

Since 1983, he has not made one single payment. Not one. In 26 years.

This is indeed a scary precedent. I have 50k in student debt, 5k in credit card debt. I have some late payments on my credit file. Will they reject my c&f app too? I mean does one need to have zero debt and a perfect credit history to gain admission?

This reminds me of the movie Gattaca.

This guy's private student loans were being held by a collection company. Someone being disqualified for because of bed credit history is now news. If this guys loans were not in collection this case would be more alarming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/business/02lawyer.html?_r=1

13 - Yes, if you have a poor credit score (e.g., 650 or below), it is very likely you will not pass the c&f exam. I have seen it happen.

15 - nonsense. A bad credit file will not disqualify you from admission. There are many attorneys with credit scores in the high 400s who were admitted - mostly due to a recent bankruptcy. Most states require that you make an effort to be current with your debt at the time of admission - past late payments generally do not matter so long as debts are current now.

Consistent refusal to pay, while able to pay, is generally grounds for denial. And it should be obvious why. In fact, in most states, a judgment creditor can have you held in criminal contempt for refusal to pay despite having the ability to do so. Basically the only form of debtors prison left.

13, you may be in trouble if you have not made a single payment on your debts in 26 years like this guy.
Otherwise, you should be fine.

12 - true, but during most of that time he wasn't contractually required to due to various deferrals. It may be financially foolish to defer payment while interest accrues, but if it is allowed by the loan agreement, what's the issue?

More recently, he states that he has tried to work out payment with his lenders, but they continuously reject the terms. Assuming that he does not have the ability to pay according to the lenders' terms, then I still fail to see the issue as far as the C&F board is concerned. Again, he has done nothing dishonest.

Although, from reading the story, I'm curious what he was doing between 1995 and 2000. He graduated UG in 95 and started LS in 2000. If he was working and able to pay then, it might be a different story. But assuming he had worked out a deferment during that time, I still see nothing improper.

-7/18

Lat, your perpetuating Elie's ignorant and misleading characterization of the situation.

Bowman was not denied admission because he had student loans, not even because he owed an outrageous amount of money. He was denied admission to the bar because he took out these insane amount of loans and made absolutely NO effort to repay a SINGLE PENNY over TWENTY SIX years. Apparently the court found him "recalcitrant" with lenders and persistent in his efforts to avoid paying what he admits were validly incurred debts. As the original NY Times article quoted the lender: “The size of this account is extremely unusual, but not surprising given that the customer took out 32 loans to pursue undergraduate, law and masters of law studies and has not made a single monthly payment over his 26-year student loan history.”

As the Model Code of Conduct reads, "A lawyer
should be one whose record of conduct justifies the
trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others with
respect to the professional duties owed to them. A
record manifesting a significant deficiency in the
honesty, trustworthiness, diligence or reliability of an
applicant may constitute a basis for denial of
admission." Specifically relevant is "neglect of financial responsibilities." How can someone who is seriously and willfully delinquent on well over six figures of debt be fit to handle the fiduciary responsibilities of being an attorney? How can he be trusted with handling client funds?

It's not like being admitted to the bar is going to help. The chap clearly isn't going to be making peer law firm wages. The story is silent on what he'd do if he were to be admitted, so the best guess is that he'd be working at a small firm or as a solo. He'll never be able to repay that kind of debt as a lawyer, so he may as well get on with his life, find another job that doesn't require a review of his debt load and start paying off that debt. I would be more than happy to perform a vasectomy on this ragamuffin to ensure that he does not breed another generation of deadbeats. That is all.

Look, people who claim that he made no payments because he was on deferment are just mistaken.

Federal loans can be deferred while you're in school full-time. For other reasons, like temporary total disability or economic hardship for three years max, and even then you are only entitled to a forbearance if you are not already in default. This guy hasn't made a single payment in 26 years. He got three degrees, but I can't image full-time student status accounts for more than 8-11 of those years. He had some financial and medical problems, but that's a three year forbearance max. So just from the limited information I have available, his accounts were probably delinquent for at least 11 or so of the past 26 years, probably many more than that.

Simply put, if you want to be a lawyer, you need to PAY YOU BILLS! Or at least, make at one modest good-faith payment every 25 years or so.

I am a 3L at a FTT seeking admission to the NY bar in the near future.

I never pay my hookers. Sometimes this causes me to be forced to slap them around a little, as they are somewhat understandably upset.

Will these unpaid debts lead me to fail C&F?

If only this was a first-step to denying admission to unemployable loser graduates from garbage law schools (like this one in 08) then those law schools would lose future suckers and the schools would have no choice but to close down. I have 100 thou in debt with no realistic way of paying it back. NY and NJ BARS- PLEASE DISBAR ME!!!

LAT: Please update the title of this thread. It should read "Update: 26-year Debt Delinquency Still Disqualifying for New York Bar Applicant"

I am looking at my Sallie Mae statement. It shows that a full payment was made this month. There's even a l line stating what percentage of that payment went to principal, and what percentage went to interest and fees.

It also states that I owe a second, full, payment before the end of the month.

No explanation. No missed prior payment. No late payments in my history.

They just somehow think I owe them two full payments for the month of November, right before Christmas.

I know I'm going to end up paying it too, to protect my loan from late fees, after past experience dealing with their customer service while trying to get my address updated "You must send in the forms. Thank you." "I did. Twice." "Well, you must send in the forms. Thank you."

I think the loan companies are out of control, and I'm tired of it.

Back in high school . . .

@15: 650 is not lousy, it's average.

And again, it is not the fact that you are in debt or the amount of your debt that matters. What matters is whether you are able to manage your finances, making reasonable efforts to meet your obligations according to their terms.

786 FICO plus six figures of law school debt equals failure at life.

So after you get dinged you can reapply? How long does the stain of the first determination last? How long does it take to establish sufficient honesty and character after a period where it was lacking?

Once you borrow from Sallie Mae, be prepared to be repeatedly ass fucked without lube and the courtesy of a reach around. Better get used to Depends.

Why doesn't he just apply to the bar of one of the other 57 states?

This dude should've been a European. Universities are free over there, including all graduate/professional programs. Lazy incompetents like this guy who want to live off the backs of the taxpayers for three decades, all under the pretense of gaining an "education", are totally welcome over there.

But this here is America. We don't tolerate that kind of nonsense. You borrow money, you have to pay it back. Or at least try to. No way anyone goes from 1983 to 2009 without making payments unless they're a useless freeloader.

Oh, and that freeloader is 7/18 in case it wasn't already obvious. He's offered "repayment plans"? I presume you mean you've offered to pay back radically less than you borrowed because your laziness has caused them to doubt ever getting back the money they handed over. If it weren't for people like you, the rest of us who actually pay our debts would be able to borrow money at much lower interest rates. Thanks for nothing.

So how does a negative character determination play into a bankruptcy certainty of hopelessness situation? Seems to me that if you cant pass the bar, you should be able to discharge law school debts in bankruptcy.

@ 34 - right, so what every single intelligent law student in the country will do is fail the bar, file for bankruptcy, discharge the loans, take BarBri, pass the bar, and work debt free from then on...?

And this will last all of one cycle before banks stop making student loans. Terrific solution.

SIncerely, 33.

Before you get too excited about my return, let me clarify a few things as to why I am posting.

I swore I would not comment on this blog as long as the editors continue to run that atrocious "My Job is Murder" series. Since the series runs on a M-W-F schedule, I took yesterday's absence of said installment to mean that the editors of this site have politely killed off the series. Ergo, my return. In the spirit of full disclosure, I will say that if the "My Job is Murder" series returns on Monday, I will reinstate my self-imposed ban. Mr. Lat, I have read your counter-arguments on facebook regarding this subject. Let me just say that reputable publications, whether print or internet based, generally respect their reader's opinions. You don't see Hugh Hefner publishing quantum mechanics articles in Playboy do you? Your readers have overwhelmingly rejected the "My Job is Murder" series. Do you really think you are doing Ms. Dokupil a favor by continuing to publish her incoherent and prosaic stories? Just because a reader can glance or skip over deplorable pieces (i.e., "My Job is Murder") doesn't mean you should compromise whatever integrity or value that Abovethelaw has by continuing to run said pieces. That is all with respect to that issue.

Here are my thoughts on this story. The appellate panel was spot on. Here we have a case of a shameless man who lived a fabulous lifestyle as a student while eschewing the responsibilities of the real world (e.g., getting a job, working, paying rent, defraying bills, etc.). He rebuffed his obligation to repay his creditors for the loans that were facilitated to him in order to further his education and lead an indolent lifestyle. 26 years. Some of you peons are younger than that. In 26 years this man has worked tirelessly to avoid his student loan obligation. Instead, he wastes resources in gaining admission to the bar while continuing to scoff at his creditors. Is this man worthy of a license to practice law? Let's think about this. The man cannot manage his finances, but as a client, I suppose you can trust him to have your money in his trust account, right? This man has no respect for authority or responsibility. Is this the type of person you want admitted into the bar? Do you wish to further dilute the worthless value of your law license by allowing this ruffian to be admitted as an attorney? Of course this is only the opinion of a legal pioneer entering his twilight years. Those that support this man's cause do so only because they see themselves sharing his same fate. To you, I say you are a disgrace to the legal profession and to humanity. That is all.

@ 36 - sorry, am I supposed to know who you are?

35

Failing Character and Fitness is not failing the bar. If character and fitness bars you from practice, what are you supposed to do? It isnt a matter of retaking a test. It is a matter of changing the past.

36

I really hate that series. But I would gladly trade that series for you. If running that series means that you leave, I say run it twice a day.

37 FTW!

I think the man was brilliant. He figured out.

Wachovia or Citi or whoever ought to be pissed on. They knew he couldn't pay. Sound familiar?

Fuck them. Not him.

Lack of charactor should be the requirement.

They client wants you to fuck the other side. Charactor just gets in the way.

11 - prostitute yourself.

A true gentleman only pays the tradesmen.

42 - a hint: it's easier to pass off an egregious spelling error as a typo if you only make it once.

At first I felt sympathy for Mr. Bowman since he received a law degree from a non-accredited law school (according to a prior ATL comment). After reading the Times' article, that sympathy turned into scorn. This guy studied and lived in London, enjoyed a great life water skiing and driving ATVs all over the world an yet conveniently tried to work it out with Sallie Mae only when he became injured. He never tried to work it out with Sallie Mae when he was healthy. And the kicker is that this guy was supported by his girlfriend during grad school. A real winner.

46 - work on your reading comprehension skills. He was neither driving an ATV nor water skiing.

You're never going to break 150 on the LSAT if you can't comprehend a simple New York Times article.

WTF? 32 student loans? Did he also take out bar exam loans each time he took the NY bar exam (4 times)? 32 loans in 26 years and not a single payment. And he plans to sue Sallie Mae to boot. Really? Good luck with that.

Many of my friends had $125,000 + in student loans/credit card debt and had no problem being admitted in California. It's not that he has a lot of debt - it's that he's made NO EFFORT to start making payments and has tried to avoid his obligations for over 20 years. Loooooser.

I think in all fairness to Mr. Bowman, the panel should have allowed him to have a law license subject to the following conditions:

a) Mandatory 25% garnishment of all gross earnings;
b) The placement of consensual and voluntary liens over any real property and bank accounts in Mr. Bowman's name for the benefit of Sallie Mae;
c) Automatic suspension of law license upon default of his student loan obligations; and,
d) Upon his 2nd default, Mr. Bowman will consent to a permanent disbarment.

These conditions are fair and will ensure that Mr. Bowman does not continue to avoid his personal obligations with his student loan servicers.

The banks should be given title to all of his organs, and allowed to harvest and sell them at once. This guy is a waste of everyone else's life and work.

Why do Black people always avoid paying their bills?

Some interesting comments.

It's always the case that more's going on than we see. Here are some things I noticed:

1. The A.D.3d noted he submitted a 93-page affidavit, after several extensions, in which he accused the CC&F board & court of "procedural irregularities." That reflects pretty appalling judgment in a variety of ways... It suggests that he picked every possible procedural nit, and/or he insisted things Had To Be Done His Way. It suggests poor judgment, both in length and in challenging the bodies having authority over his license. Finally, it permits the inference that he's been equally difficult with his lenders.

2. I doubt the court would describe him as "recalcitran[t]" without some good reason. But the CCF recommendation suggests he'd only been out-of-school for 3 or so years between 1992 & 2004. Why wasn't he working post-2004, perhaps as a paralegal, while studying for the bar?

3. Six years in rehabilitation? I'm skeptical.

4. The denial's without prejudice. That means he'll probably get in, if he makes some reasonable payments ($1k/mo?) over the next two years.

5. Even so, I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole. Family history of mental illness, lack of stable childhood upbringing, multiple bar application failures, that 93-page affidavit. No flippin way would I hire him as a secretary, much less as an attorney. A train-wreck waiting to happen.

-- ET!

Bowman will not win on appeal. Here is why. If Bowman's student loans are such an undue hardship for him, he could try getting them discharged in bankruptcy. My guess is Mr. Bowman will fail as a result of not meeting the 3rd requirement of the Brunner test (requiring a good faith effort to repay student loans). Most judges took out student loans and had to payoff their student loans. They simply cannot relate to Mr. Bowman. Sure, Bowman was an orphan (cry me a river) and overcame learning disabilities to earn a JD (proving that any monkey can go to law school and get a JD). The SOB story ends there. Bowman lived the freeloader's fantasy dream. He was a student for most of his adult life, did not work, relied on the kindness and generosity of others (sponging off of a girlfriend as the article points out), rode motorcycles, swam in exotic waters, lived in one of the most expensive cities in the world (London) and did not pay one penny in 26 years (9,490 days) towards his student loans. Had he paid $28 a day towards his student loans, he would not have been in this predictament. Bowman claims he needs a license to start repaying his student loans. If he hasn't made an effort to repay in all these years, do you really think he will now if he gets admitted? Really?

Message to Bob Bowman.

Dude, relax. Obama will bail you out. Don't you know that he is working hard to provide a bailout package for struggling poor grads that can't pay their student loans? Once Obama absolves you, you will make the appellate panel eat their decision. Just be patient. Relief is coming just like hope and change did.

This guy has been accumulating $10,000 in interest and fees every month. There is no way any realistic JD job was going to allow him to keep up with that ridiculous running tab.

The judges have basically and wisely told this guy that he needs to win the lottery, create some super-profitable company, or kill himself.

Presumably after his girlfriend got tired of supporing him, Bowman moved into his mother's house in Miramar, Florida at the age of 45. Does this guy expect to be supported for the rest of his life?

Presumably after his girlfriend got tired of supporting him, Bowman moved into his mother's house in Miramar, Florida at the age of 45. Does this guy expect to be supported for the rest of his life?

@56

Seems to me, this guy already won the lottery. He obtained a free bachelors, a free law degree and a masters of law gratis. Free? Sure, he is 47 years old and has yet to pay a penny toward his degrees, unlike the rest of us. He has lived all over the place, including Florida, California, New York and London. He had a girlfriend and a mother who supported him and he jet-setted in style riding in motorcycles and relaxing in waters while watching the rich jet ski their troubles away. I doubt this guy will win the lottery again. What are the chances? In the billions? And although this aspect of the story was conveniently left out, how much do you think this guy got from suing the insurance companies as a result of the water skiing and ATV collision cases? Do you think he made a payment to Sallie Mae when the settlement checks were cut?

Bowman must have been hoping for Judge Spinner.

I don't know that this guy did the wrong thing. The amount of penalties tacked on to his loan in four years was astounding. If he was entitled to deferrals, and they screwed him over, he has a right to complaint.

61, he did not start to complain about his loans until 2007. What did he do between 1983 and 2007 to deal with his student loans? Nothing. The amount is staggering but it is not the reason why he failed CF. Instead of wasting away in appeals, this guy should just get a job, make an effort to re-pay his student loans (3 years) then reapply for admission. His reckless attitude and approach is why he is not a lawyer, not the amount of his debt. This guy sounds like the type that blames everyone for his woes except himself. The disturbing thing about this guy is that he has no remorse in stiffing his creditors and this trait is akin to a thief's lack of remorse in his victim.

It's pussy fart time; bitches, let 'em RIP!

Good lord. It's like half the thread is gunning to be the next ATL EIC.

I had sex with # 36 and he farted like five times. Some of them were wet ones.

@13

No, you do not need perfect credit, no debt, etc. to gain admission (from personal experience). The C&F people just want to see an attempt to repay your loans. They're mindful that most people do not have above-average credit. When I say "attempts to repay your loans," I'm talking about, literally, $25/mo. to your lenders. Just something that says you recognize you owe the money, and you will pay it off eventually. That's all they want.

That said, that minimal effort is very important. A friend was admitted who had unattended debts plus a serious criminal charge (which was dismissed, but still scary to put down on your application). The C&F people held up her application, but only until she addressed the debt. They never said a word (from I'm told) about the criminal charge.

I can understand why his candidacy for admission caused such grave concern for the members of the board. One of the many duties likely to fall on the shoulders of any practicing lawyer is that of advising a client on complying with duties imposed by law. Here, Mr. Bowman undertook these debts voluntarily; and yet, it appears that he has not made any satisfactory effort(s) to discharge duties that he voluntarily undertook. Even if the underlying obligation does not concern him, keeping his word should be his utmost concern.

This says nothing of the fact that it is this type of behavior, along with that of others who are similarly situated, that causes the cost of borrowing funds to finance the pursuit of higher education among the poor and working middle class to increase (after all, it is unlikely that those who are well off are borrowing funds to pay for school (unless they're playing the spread between interest rates on student loans and rates of return on investment--nice if you have the money to cover the potential downside)). As somebody who came from a very poor family who had to borrow funds to finance my living expenses in undergraduate school and law school--the generosity of the schools I attended covered the cost of tuition through grants and scholarships--and who is now working to pay off those loans, I am disgusted by such behavior.

In law as in life, your word has to mean something. If you're the kind of lawyer who orally agrees to extensions and, later, tries to renege, your reputation suffers, and your ability to represent clients effecively is impaired. The board may have been concerned that he was cut from that cloth.

This story does a disservice to those of us who have large amounts of debt or some credit blemishes. Further, it make all of us law students from the trailer park appear to be, as PE would call us, penurious. Put up somebody with a real sob story. Don't have one? Hopefully because there aren't many. I stressed pretty hard about C&F, having been hospitalized without insurance, but the truth is that the committee doesn't care about the size of the debt, but your treatment of it (insert dick joke here). Still, when you look at what an education costs, coupled with lenders relying on government backing of otherwise foolish loans, disaster seems more likely than not. Either bring down the cost of education, or stop lending and keep it in the hands of the upper middle class, because $100K in debt might as well be $10 million in this market.

This would never happen at Haynes & Boone

this is a reminder for everyone regarding debts. we must be cautious on the people that will intend to ask us for a favor. if you found yourself in this kind of scenario, this site can be a great help for you as it did for me :

Legal Forms

this is a reminder for everyone regarding debts. we must be cautious on the people that will intend to ask us for a favor. if you found yourself in this kind of scenario, this site can be a great help for you as it did for me :

Legal Forms

PE Partially outed himself...

This would never happen at Paul Hastings.

This would never happen to the U.S.

The critical issue is the lack of repayment. He never made any payments on the loans. Throughout the decades he has always found some way out. He would probably be ok if he had been making some (5-10) payments, even in the 80s and 90s.

Please report the full facts of the story rather than slanting it. This is not a denial due to large amounts of student loans, and it has nothing to do with the increasing loans that other students face. This guy was a totally irresponsible delinquent with his finances, to the point of being criminally negligent if that were a possible charge. He took out more debt than school actually costs and then he did nothing to pay it back for decades. Nothing. He also didn't even talk to his creditors. Pathetic.

Maybe he can get a scholarship from NYU to pick up an LLM in Law & Jewish Civilization.
It might provide him with the “edge” he needs to pay off these loans.

Bowman is never going to be admitted anywhere unless he makes several years of steady payments on his debts. Even if he makes payments, it may be a bad investment (assuming there are no further consequences for his non-payment other than being denied admittance) since he's unlikely to earn much as a lawyer given his less than mediocre record.

I think #53 has it right. From the Appellate Division decision (http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/D-51-09Anonymous.pdf), he was originally denied in April and now, six months later, the Appellate Division is commenting that his "recalcitrance... has been and continues to be incompatible with a lawyer's duties and responsibilities." It seems like he spent months arguing procedural irregularities but not actually attempting to fix the problem.

Tiger Tiger Woods Y'all

Commenters here nailed it. He wasn't denied b/c of the debt, but because he spent years making bs legal arguments and customer service complaints trying to get out of it. Look at comment #113 from the previous post on this topic, clearly written by the guy himself. When commenters pointed out that his letters were bat-s--t crazy, he took them down.

How about the ass clowns heading the major firms that absolutely crapped themselves during the financial crisis?

Going insolvent as a firm (i.e. Heller, etc.) apparently goes unnoticed by character and fitness, but racking up debt (admittedly a ton of debt) is disqualifying even from admission to the profession.

Sure. That makes sense.

Note the addendum to the post:

"UPDATE: There is some good information in the comments, suggesting that the issue here is less about his total debt and more about his failure to make efforts at repayment."

You know, buried in there among the typical PE snobbery was a truly excellent opinion comment. Egads, I might actually begin to like this guy!

I think the point that has been overlooked here is that Bowman is probably judgment proof--and he knows it. That is the only reason why I can imagine someone not paying anything towards their student loans in 26 years. He probably has no property (to attach a lien), no job (to attach wages) and no future (to foreclose on). This nimrod probably wants to gain admission into the bar just so he can put "Esq." at the end of his name. I don't even think he plans to work. Who would hire a psychotic failure at the age of 47 to be a first year associate? No firm, peer or non-peer.

His repeated bar failures make him extra attractive!

52= Stupid Asswipe (not that it matters) he's a white guy
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/business/02lawyer.html

I think people haven't researched this man's situation thoroughly enough to fully grasp its magnitude. It's my understanding that he's disabled from the horrible circumstances life dealt him. Also, the shocker here is that he's the first majority citizen to be dinged like this. Here's a blog that looks at both sides: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/02/sizing-up-a-student-loan-horror-story/

I think that this precedent just gives the already bias and often bigoted bars of this nation free reign to make arbitrary decisions against people who rose above their station. After all you never hear of a spouse who's never made a payment on their 500,000 home being denied even when the home is foreclosed on... or will we?