hi.

Good god almighty. Never, ever should the government do this. Why should the taxpayers help out a bunch of self-important attorneys, who likely will make loads of money in the years to come. Fuck the law grads. Let them take care of their loans.

Instead of this nonsense, how about reducing the number of law schools to something like 50 so that thousands of potential law students don't take up hundreds of thousands of debt to obtain meaningless degrees.

ABA = WORST. ORGANIZATION. EVER.

Why does everyone keep talking about the ABA? Of course my school's accredited! Look it up idiot! God!

I wish all of my fellow law grads the best -- but the way some of you lived during law school makes me want to say "tough sh*t" when it comes to re-categorizing your loans.

Wasn't it nice living in a luxury high rise for three years with maid service and a car? Well, now you gotta pay for it. I realize this isn't everybody, of course, but as John Stossel would say...

Waste of taxpayer money.

How about they change the proposal so this option is only available to grads from top 50 schools. And they tack on an amendment allowing mafia-style enforcement for private loans given to non-top 50 grads.

7,
Shouldn't we be allowed to waste our own money, shit let everyone else waste it.

bring down law school tuition. that's the answer that SHOULD prevail.

PS, my private loans are at 4% federal loans are at 7.5%. financial aid "specialists" at law school feed you the crap about making all your loans federal, but--to quote Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer:

"it all was bullsh*t
it was a G*dd*mn joke
and when [loan specialists] hear this song
I hope [they] f*cking choke."

I inherited this mess!

I'm Barack Obama?

"The plan would be “revenue positive” for the federal government, he added."

And Obamacare won't cost a dime (much like J-Lo's love).
While we are at it why doesn't the gov't continue to make sub-prime loans. Oh snap that's what Fannie and Freddie have been doing and they had great results this past quarter.

3- Why are you reading a law blog? It's like the parents television council (AKA dry, sandy cunted old hags) who sit around cruising TV channels all day looking for shit to write the FCC about.

Also, by converting private loans into federal ones, the federal government gets the interest. It's a money maker for the Fed. It's not a giveaway. You only get one of those if you have a 9 figure bank account already.

3 and 7, go back to getting all your information from Glenn Beck. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

You should have to disclose all of your expenditures from the June before you started law school up through the December after law school. If any post-bar travel extravaganzas or trips to Vegas, Amsterdam or Cancun show up, you will be automatically excluded from eligibility.

Fuck the spoiled brats.

No.

These students may their bed by taking on huge loans, and they should sleep in it now. I don't want my taxpayer dollars being used for this purpose.

The loser: TAXPAYERS. If you foolishly took out private loans that you can't repay, why should the rest of society bear that burden for you in the form of higher taxes? You chose to go to law school, you didn't do as well as you needed to at that law school, you couldn't get a job to payoff your private loans -- why is the rest of our problem again?

1. I don't think some vague request for a bailout constitutes "an actual plan."

2. Revenue positive my left foot.

More federal student loans equals increased tuition... great.

BHO,

Everyone, including my law professor, knows that it is spelled "Barrack."

Your argument doesn't make any sense, either!

Is the ABA a friend or a foe to the legal profession?

Let us examine:

1) The ABA accredits law schools that should not be accreditted in the first place (some of those institutions have been the subject of recent stories on this website); thereby, increasing the attorney ranks and further decreasing the value of each attorney;

2) The ABA encourages the use of foreign based attorneys in lieu of good old home grown attorneys;

3) The ABA wants to facilitate credit for law students so they can go bankrupt (of course the student loans are non-dischargeable) and live a lifetime of penury paying off said loans;

4) As a result of the ABA's actions, law graduates have no employment bargaining power;

5) ...no need to go further.

Conclusion: From my perspective, the ABA is a friend to my financial well-being. God bless the ABA.

Sent from Partner Emeritus' HTC Imagio™ smartphone.

17: Exactly. If it were revenue position, it would have been done a long time ago. It's only revenue positive insofar as it'll create more debt and help justify higher taxes.

The ABA needs to stop worrying about financial aid and get cracking on UC Davis' application to have its accreditation reinstated. Hoping it can happen by the time I graduate. . .

-UC Davis 2L

It's sooooo funny listening to you morons talk about your taxpayer dollars.

LET'S THROW A TEABAG PARTY! YAAAAY I'll call Michelle Bachmann and you guys call Sean Hannity. We'll all sit around and jack each other off onto that picture of Barack Obama on his trip to indonesia where he's wearing the indigenous garb. Then we'll scream about kicking muslims out of the military until our refractory period is over.

Yeah, it will be a money-maker just like AIG and the TARP bailout.

Socialize the losses, privatize the gains.

Gee, I hope any law school grads who feed at this new trough vote for any GOP candidates in the future who promise massive tax cuts for society's top earners. That would be hypocrisy and who could ever live with themselves by being a hypocrite!

P.S. Let's have Lat weigh in. Surely the Federalist Society will take a reasoned and principled position on this proposal.

13/23 believes government can create value out of nothing. He's wrong.

Shut up 22! Why would you even say that! We are to accredited! UC Davis is like the best law school in the world! Why would you question that? Everyone knows we're in the top 200 schools! Of course we're accredited! UC is like the most respected university system in the universe! You people are all idiots!

PE, you bought that shitty HTC Imagio?!?!?

I love how you can clearly determine who is a legal professional by the comments.

23: Let's make it an opt-in part of the Tax Code then. You, Mr. Do-Gooder can pay for the student loan bailout, and we, the more fiscally prudent people, don't have to. There's no more personal responsibility in this country -- it goes for businesses, consumer, students, the government, everyone. If you dig yourself into a financial hole, then you should be the one to dig yourself out of it, not the rest of society. Why should we, the people who behaved prudently, didn't buy overpriced houses, didn't blow all our money on toxic investments, didn't go to a tier 4 law school and have no way of paying off those loans, be punished for your stupidity?

Guarantee you they put income limits on this. God forbid someone making over 100K is able to consolidate their debt (of almost 200K) into a fixed rate. The fact that I can't consolidate and convert my variable rate private loans is a joke. Interest rates are currently around 3% and I have to hurry up and pay them off before interest rates jump to 20% because of BHOzo's economic redistribution. I F*ing hate this government.

What's so special about law school loans? I have no desire to fund some egotistical, maniacal jerk's law school education. Let them eat cake and pay back their loans just like everyone else who took out loans to fund their post-undergraduate education.

"by converting private loans into federal ones, the federal government gets the interest. It's a money maker for the Fed."

I expect this sort of reasoning from Mystal, but not from a commenter. It looks like someone failed basic economics. If this was such a money maker, why don't we let the government convert all of our credit card loans, mortgages, junk bonds, etc., into federal loans, and use the guaranteed earnings to eliminate the deficit and pay off our national debt in a couple of years. It's a win-win for everyone!

This comment is addressed to post no. 27.

Not to worry, my HD2 will be arriving this Friday. Incidentally, the sales representative at the Verizon store that sold me the Imagio is a deferred associate. We live in a great country where folks can collect a generous severance from a law firm and still earn coin on the side.

Sent from Partner Emeritus' HTC Imagio™ smartphone.

Once the loans become federal, there will be great pressure for bailouta. Get rid of that car!

This post is rampant with raging TTT grads today.

It's the "I had to pay off my loans for my worthless degree, so should you" argument.

The fact is, you were able to get a job when you graduated. Now, even the T14 recent grads cant find any work. We still have to pay the loans back by the way. This plan would protect us from the interest balloon known as forbearance.

PE,

How's the view over at Rick's?

If I'm not mistaken, private student loans are already guaranteed by the federal government. Citi and BoA profit, but the risk is already on the taxpayers. Let the government make the interest.

29- that's not my point. Student loans have been a revenue positive portion of the federal government for decades. Regardless, it's such a tiny, tiny portion of the government that you tea baggers bitching and whining about it while we dump billions a week into the sand between the tigris and euphrates is a joke.

So you OMG TAXES! dumbasses should point your priorities elsewhere. It's like complaining about sore knee while you have brain cancer.

Or they could just make the private loans dischargable in bankruptcy. Makes a hell of a lot more sense.

30 - Why the rush to pay them off now? If you wait a few years to pay back your loans, you will be able to do so with inflated dollars. You have a $200K loan balance in 2009 dollars. The balance in 2012 dollars will likely be more like $50K. The value of the dollar is dropping like a rock through a wet paper bag and thanks to BHO and the "progressives" in Congress, there is no end in sight.

Here is my recommendation to ALL people who have large loan balances. Minimize your loan payments today and buy gold with the remainder. Just look at where gold and the dollar are going and you will see that by 2012, you will be sitting on a pile of cash.

Dear fuckwits and retards, the private loans are already guaranteed by the government. Taxpayers are going to take a bath either way.

Oh man, I have $297,000 in private loans from 7 years at Hofstra (I avoided taking out federal loans because Citibank offered a free Mets beach towel each year if you signed an exclusive loan agreement with them, so I avoided the Stafford and Perkins Loans like the plague and now I have a pretty boss set of 7 Mets beach towels). Does this mean I can roll those loans into federal loans and get a forebearance? Would I be in breach of my agreement with Citibank if I did that?

Why only private school loans to law students? Why not private school loans to hair dressers, too?

This comment is addressed to post no. 36.

I just left Rick's Cabaret. I will be returning this evening. The highlight of my lunch hour was receiving a slow and seductive dance by Irina while an '80s song (with the chorus of "Toy Soldiers") was playing in the background. I definitely climbed the summit.

Sent from Partner Emeritus' HTC Imagio™ smartphone.

37 = win.

40: and besides, with the world ending in 2012 anyway, why send your money to your lenders in the meantime? try to collect after Armageddon, suckas! i'm spending my dough on shotguns and canned food!

43, because hair dressers learned real skills in school and don't whine all day about how they should be bailed out.

You morons.

Taxpayers already fund AND GUARANTEE the private loans. We put up the money once for everyone who went to law school. And we'll pay for everyone who defaults.

Meantime the private lenders, who loaned public funds, make 8.5% interest and collect fees from all the students.

This is a way for the government to get its money back. And it was proposed by Republicans (pre Glenn Beck era, of course).

You morons.

Taxpayers already fund AND GUARANTEE the private loans. We put up the money once for everyone who went to law school. And we'll pay for everyone who defaults.

Meantime the private lenders, who loaned public funds, make 8.5% interest and collect fees from all the students.

This is a way for the government to get its money back. And it was proposed by Republicans (pre Glenn Beck era, of course).

Am I missing something? Why is this being called a bailout? (a) All my loans are through the Direct program anyway - I never even had to take private loans or really even considered it, and (b) They are STILL loans. They still have to be paid back. They still have interest. The balance doesn't decrease. They don't create any more certainty in the job market... What do the friends of Palin ("taxpayers") find so threatening about this?

You morons.

Taxpayers already fund AND GUARANTEE the private loans. We put up the money once for everyone who went to law school. And we'll pay for everyone who defaults.

Meantime the private lenders, who loaned public funds, make 8.5% interest and collect fees from all the students.

This is a way for the government to get its money back. And it was proposed by Republicans (pre Glenn Beck era, of course).

Who does the ABA exactly represent? Not lawyers.

Lower tuition. Don't let law schools be cash cows for universities. Revenues generated by law school tuition should not exceded the expenses of the law school.

Stop accrediting more law schools.

So has anyone else from the class of 2009 gotten their loans deferred? Was this hard to do? Thanks.

True private student loans are not guaranteed by the government, unless by guarantee you mean the federal government implicitly has agreed to bail out the financial institutions providing such loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_States

Ohhhhh try to help me out 51!!!!

If someone graduates from law school and can't figure out a way to defer private loans they deserve to be out of work.

We need to bomb these morons back to the stoneage!
-DOJ Secure

#42 - Thanks for sharing. Nicely done.

The ABA either needs to severely limit the number of law schools, or require law schools to dramatically lower tuition and publish accurate information. The former is a far better idea. The latter would turn law degrees into advanced liberal arts degrees, open to the masses but too common to have serious value for 95% of those who earn it.

How about the top tier schools get together and exert some pressure on employers. For example, firms must abide by NALP rules, or the schools will not allow them to interview, and will actively discourage their students from working there. Right now, only Harvard or Yale matter to any law firm, but if the choice was to treat students with respect and honor promises, or hire from second tier and lower, there is a strong financial incentive to continue to recruit top tier. How long will client pay high billing rates at firms that recruit mostly second tier students?

Yes, I know it is almost impossible to enact this, and that student/schools would still break ranks to maximize their own success. However, how long do we want to highly educated, intelligent professionals who have no bargaining power at all?

49 - I think people are referring to Income-Based Repayment, which will mean that people will pay far less for federal loans than private ones. This is, effectively, a new subsidy for most law school loans.

Dear Haters (and Self-Haters):

I went to a top-20 law school, made cum laude, but had the misfortune of graduating in 2001. I lived like a student before, during, and after graduation. I worked very hard, I interned, I worked for the government, I worked my way up from junior to mid-level associate billing 2000 hours. Unfortunately, I was laid off with many other hard-working associates. I have been doing document review for the last few months and am barely scraping by to pay my 2000+ student loan payments. I have done everything anyone ever told me to do, but I cannot find a permanent job. I can't afford health insurance, and I am thinking about suicide, with the only thing stopping me that my sister co-signed on my student loans, and Sallie Mae will go after her. Why not allow the government to step in and get some breathing room? Why do you assume that everyone who can't find a job is a loser? Where does the hate come from???

38 and others in support-
What don't you want the government to provide you with? This is getting rediculous. A person makes their own decisions and takes the good and bad with it. 5 years ago everyone wanted to be a lawyer because the economy was great and lawyers were getting paid hand over fist. Now the economy is well hell. So of course the bleeding hearts feel bad that everyone was tricked into going to law school. Guess what, you took out too much money to try and score a pay day when you graduate. It is like the lottery, just because the odds were better in the past doesn't mean everyone should get a refund (I know, they still have to pay off the loans, just get no interest for up to three years, which in and of itself is income) I went to law school because I actually wanted to be a lawyer, not for the paycheck but because this is what I wanted to do with my life. Luckily for me, my family is rich. We paid off almost all of my tuition out of pocket. (What we didn't pay off was the money the government gave me in Stafford Loans, if you know anything about tax law/economics you would understand why I would take those loans even though I didn't need them) Stop with these bailouts. People need to fail. Make people accountable for their mistakes!

I have an idea. Why not let the government run everything?

32 FTW.

37/41/45/47/48 - Some private student loans may be federally insured but that doesn't mean that all are. Regardless, under your reasoning, we should institute nationalized banking since nearly all all savings and loans are now backed by some governmental entity such as the FDIC.

Of course, this is ATL, so I'm sure I'll have a bunch of 2Ls currently taking Business Organizations point out that most banks are N.A., or National Associations. Preemptive note: N.A. does not equal nationalized banking. Thank you.

The phrase "these loans aren't guaranteed by the government" is a phrase they use to explain why there's interest. It's not a government loan, but it's still government money. (Something like the cash for clunkers program).

Look, go read the legislation that passed the house in 2006, then google Representative Peti of Minnesota (Republican). The banks get paid from public funds, because the government wants to encourage lending. Taxpayers have the risk, the banks have the reward.

For libertarians, the applicable phrase is "regulatory capture."

2:

Hi.

--64

43- Because hair dressers may be able to get a job after they graduate (w/o deferral!)

43 - Apparently hairdressers are underrepresented in the ABA.

The phrase "these loans aren't guaranteed by the government" is a phrase they use to explain why there's interest. It's not a government loan, but it's still government money. (Something like the cash for clunkers program).

Look, go read the legislation that passed the house in 2006, then google Representative Peti of Minnesota (Republican). The banks get paid from public funds, because the government wants to encourage lending. Taxpayers have the risk, the banks have the reward.

For libertarians, the applicable phrase is "regulatory capture."

The phrase "these loans aren't guaranteed by the government" is a phrase they use to explain why there's interest. It's not a government loan, but it's still government money. (Something like the cash for clunkers program).

Look, go read the legislation that passed the house in 2006, then google Representative Peti of Minnesota (Republican). The banks get paid from public funds, because the government wants to encourage lending. Taxpayers have the risk, the banks have the reward.

For libertarians, the applicable phrase is "regulatory capture."

Forget this idea for certain of the reasons stated above. (Here's another - it will never happen.) Instead we should be able to deduct loan interest payments for tax purposes w/ no income ceiling or with a greatly increased ceiling, e.g., $500k.

When the lenders say, "these loans aren't guaranteed by the government" is a phrase they use to explain why there's interest charged. It's not a government loan, but it's still government money. (Something like the cash for clunkers program).

The banks get paid from public funds, because the government wants to encourage lending. Taxpayers have the risk, the banks have the reward.

For libertarians, the applicable phrase is "regulatory capture."

Horrible idea you idiot. Private lenders are already too generous with law loans. This is what enables places like cooley, and gulc, and gw to run these ponzi scheme lae schools

"Private lenders will actually get money from students who won’t otherwise be able to afford to pay off their loans. . . . And the government should make money back on the interest — assuming these lawyers are one day able to find gainful employment."

Do you not see the contradiction in those statements? Someone takes a haircut either way. If the loans perform better than expected, then it's a win for the government at the cost of the private lender (who could have received more by holding the loans). If they perform worse, then it's a government bailout (buying assets for more than what they are worth). If it's a perfect trade, nobody gets anything. Unless there are efficiencies gained by running them through the government, then the statements don't make any sense.

Meanwhile, the student still owes the same amount (even if they can defer it longer). Sure, the interest rate could change, but then somone is paying too much or too little, depending on the risk.

Without efficiencies, it's all a zero sum game. Yet you've managed to conclude that giving zeros to everyone means everyone wins. No wonder why this country is screwed up.

Why do you think the lenders are so generous? In most instances, it's not their money.

70, from your lips to G-d's ears.

@59 My understanding was that even under IBR, most students end up paying for their entire education + interest, just not nearly as much interest. A law grad making $45,000, never getting a raise and making the IBR payment for 25 years, will still end up paying over $100,000 before the loan is forgiven.

I also highly doubt that #3 is aware of payment options, and is instead trolling whatever thread he can saying "Don't let the gummint help no one." So other than IBR, is there a reason why everyone is calling this a loan bailout?

58 - See Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

PE, instead of playing around with toy phones, start planning around your grave.

You and your laid off associates will both end up 6 feet under, so what's the point?

"The FFEL, initiated by the Higher Education Act of 1965, is a program where the federal government subsidizes banks to give student loans at no-risk to the bank, guaranteeing the loans and allowing banks to keep the profits."

"The FFEL, initiated by the Higher Education Act of 1965, is a program where the federal government subsidizes banks to give student loans at no-risk to the bank, guaranteeing the loans and allowing banks to keep the profits."

This program was barely used until law school tuition exploded in the last decade. After that, it turned into a windfall for lenders. The student loan legislation which passed the House in September, and is still pending in the Senate, will end the program.

Also, apologies, the Minnesota Republican who started the student loan reform movement, targeting FFEL, years ago lost his seat. He's no longer easy to find, but we owe him a huge debt for his foresight.

"Unless there are efficiencies gained by running them through the government, then the statements don't make any sense."

First, there are efficiencies gained by running the loans through the government.

Second, unlike the banks, who have an incentive to force the student into bankruptcy, the government can afford to wait. The banks can sell a defaulted loan as a monetized income stream. There's a huge problem with false defaults, because they don't care.

Finally, the government should earn the interest and rewards whenever the government bears the risk, as it does under FFEL - which covers most private loans, because banks don't give their own money to unemployed students with no career prospects .

@61: "Refund"? Hardly. Students still pay, at interest. Even if this is income, broadly conceived, they are still taking responsibility for a very large loan that they took out at a very early age. It sounds like your only problem with this proposal is that it lets people spend three years getting a career going before spending many years making (possibly) the most expensive purchase of their lives. Really? That's an irresponsible, self-entitled "refund" in your mind?

And nobody went to law school out of some calculated look at lawyer salaries in 2004. Every American has been told that having good schooling and hard work will mean that a position will be available to them. We were supposed to think otherwise? Even though every teacher, parent, politician, and business leader has been telling us since Kindergarten that the way to success is through professionalism?

61, I'm sorry for your situation. Please don't turn it into a tragedy for your family. People come through this and so can you.

@61 - No reason to kill yourself now.

You can buy a relatively inexpensive 10 year insurance policy and wait the 2 years for the suicide exclusion to run. Odds are that things will be better by then (get some actual treatment if at all possible), but at least the insurance money will pay off any cosigned debt.

Good idea. The ABA is finally doing something for lawyers. They must be feeling the pain of unemployed lawyers who can't pay their ridiculous membership fees.

After this gets through, and lots of lawyers are still unemployed, let's get a government bailout of all government student loans! Just like the financial industry! Sweet! Debt free in a year! Can't even do that working for BigFlaw.

The government needs to reduce the interest rate charged for the Stafford loans. I am paying around 8%. I can get a home loan for about 6%. The home loan is dischargable in bankruptcy; the student loans aren't. Part of the interest rate charged is based on credit risk - if student loans aren't dischargable, I would assume the rates should be cheaper. It upsets me that the government was willing to give banks 0% loans during the economic crisis, but completely ignored students.

All private loans are NOT guaranteed by the federal government. Some are. Some are not. That's the whole reason non-dischargability matters. If Sallie Mae could simply dump the loans back on the government when didn't perform, they wouldn't have armies of collections agents to harass borrowers into repaying and they wouldn't care if the loans were dischargable or not.

As for the unintelligible references to Cash for Clunkers, government efficiency and all the other incoherent ramblings in this thread - please take a class in economics and some kind of elementary legal writing class before posting again.

TIA

I will have paid off my private loan debt by March. $45K in three years, because I lived cheap and paid extra every month.

So to hell with this stupid idea.

61- i want "the commons." Police, Fire, Military, energy, sewer, roads, courts, etc.

Some say health insurance should be a part of the commons, but a very easy way to fix all health care issues in this country is a quick one sentence bill: "there shall be no publicly traded for- profit health insurance providers within the United States." Done and done. I suppose their antitrust exemption needs to be lifted as well.

The federal gov doesnt *need* to provide student loans, but why not go ahead and do it if they can do it in a revenue positive way? Why not provide health care if it can be revenue neutral through premiums? I don't understand the argument against it. Why are the scariest words in the English language "I'm from the government and I'm here to help?" A well run government organization can be a national treasure.

If you limit the number of law schools, lawyers will once again be well paid and law will become exclusive. But maybe you don't want to do that.

That's what they do in Japan. Very few people go to law school and pass the bar. But they're not sue happy like over here so maybe they don't need so many lawyers.

OTOH, maybe it's better to slam the door from the start and not let everyone who wants to be a lawyer become one by going to whatever LS s/he can get into. This, instead of slamming the door shut after you've wasted three years and spent way too much money for a degree that doesn't lead to a job or not being able to pass the bar.

61:

Your local bar association should provide confidential counseling that can help with your depression.

If they don't, there should be other options out there - your local Ph.D/Psy.D pschology program probably has a counseling center with a nominal/no-fee services provided by doctoral candidates. Elie- you should consider doing a real (sans snark) feature on resources for lawyers dealing with economy crash-onset depresssion. I spoke at a career panel a couple weeks ago and all of the 3ls look like they needed clinical services. 61, hang in there, it sounds like you have accomplished a lot in life, this is probably just a minor blip in a successful career.

Retired partner here: I quit the ABA. The organization is full of shit. They've got their head solidly up Obama's ass, but only after licking the assholes of every Dem in Congress. The ABA quit being a organization for attorneys at about the same time it started endorsing every liberal bullshit idea to come along. The ABA is like the AARP in that neither organiztion has much in common with the vast majority of its members.

86 - 6%?!? I just bought a home at 4.6% and I am finding lower interest rates today. Where are you finding 6%?

I think it might be very helpful for ATL or some other legal blog to do an up to date write-up on the legal constraints within which the ABA operates when accrediting law schools. I get the sense that quite a few commenters have misimpressions of the scope of the ABA's discretion relating to this subject and no knowledge of the history of the ABA's conflicts with the Department of Education over this subject, such as the dispute that lead to a settlement in 1995.

92 - lol.

This is a brilliant plan!

Step 1 - Convert private law school loans into federal ones.

Step 2 - Enact a new "cash for clunkers" program that gives huge tax incentives for corporations to dump all of their older, established lawyers who have paid off all of their student loans and hire young lawyers with huge debt.

Step 3 - Young lawyers make lots of money and pay off their loans!

I don't see any downside to this.

Good point 92. Ann Coulter recently made the point that any organization that isn't expressly conservative will inevitably be overrun by the far left. Far left liberals just love to worm their way into groups and impose their agenda from the inside out. ABA, AMA, AARP, NCAA, ACLU, it doesn't matter.

96 - They could call it "cash for shysters"

90: "If you limit the number of law schools, lawyers will once again be well paid and law will become exclusive. But maybe you don't want to do that."

I find this really ironic. It's not really what you're saying. You're kind of on the right track except for one part. And it makes the "Close all but the top 30 schools" crowd look just laughable.

The idea of "law" as "well paid" is a very very recent one. Lawyers have almost always been relatively comfortable, on the same level that most other "professional" occupations are comfortably compensated. (Doctors, accountants, engineers etc).

As short ago as the mid 1990's, starting big firm graduates earned $60-70k per year and starting small firm graduates earned $40k per year. Today small firm lawyers still tend to earn in the $55-60k range (which is about on par with inflation), while big firm lawyers earn $145k-160k.

I'm reasonably confident in saying it wasn't the quality of lawyers that drove the salary increase. It was (among other things) an artifact of the financial bubble of the last 6-8 years.

In effect, people that say the ABA should close all but the top 30 schools (or whatever they're actually suggesting), to make being a lawyer "profitable" again, are asking for something that never existed.

BRILLIANT

61 does not need counseling. 61 needs a job. Many people on this board come from rich families and have never struggled in their lives. 61 take pride in the fact that whatever you get, which may not be much, you got it yourself.

Does this mean we can pay back at the federal government rates established under the Student Loan Repayment Act of 2007

We need to back away from enabling the "gotta-have-it-right-now" attitude and help potental law students make better finncial decisions. Ensuring information uniformity and right-sizing the amount of law school debt to match the potential oppotunity are two badly needed reforms in the student loan market. More on this here:
http://thelegaldollar.blogspot.com/2009/11/regulation-of-law-school-loan-market-is.html

What will you call a current medical stdient in 2012? Civil servant.

Whar will you call a current law stiudent in 2012? Screwed.

Seriously, unless there is a sea change in the House and senante in 2010, we are all screwed. Gold was up another $14/ounce today.

I was on a law school campus recently when an ABA rep was present for an accreditation visit. I was there for CLE, and he and I had hotel rooms next to each other. When I found out he was ABA, I told him I was disappointed the ABA continues to accredit new schools and hasn't revoked the accrediation of more schools. He refused to participate in the conversation further and walked away saying he was late for a meeting.

97, are you really as stupid as your message? Really, I want to know. You must be one dumb motherfucker, or at least a dumbass.

60:

To answer your question: Them's the breaks. This is America. No one cares how hard you tried, whether you played by the rules, or whether you did "everything you were told to you." You have to get results. Make your own way. No one cares "how" you do it. Get it done.

Its like being dumbfounded when a client doesn't want to pay your 200K bill after you just lost the 100 mil. trial. Do you think the client cares "how hard you tried" whether you made all the proper legal arguments, whether you made the appropriate objections, or whether you didn't have a life for the year before the trial? No! You didn't get results--end of story. It may not be your "fault"; you may have done nothing "wrong"--but do you think the client cares about that?

People here sicken me. We have a whole generation of kids who think that so long as they "do what they are told"; "play by the rules" and "work hard" that they are entitled to a job, entitled to sucess, and deserve public benefits if they cannot obtain either.

You know what? The world sucks. Life is not fair. There are no guarantees. Get over it and make your own way.

Agreed, too many law schools churning out too many grads with too much debt. It's a terrible racket. I like the concept of allowing people to make educational decisions for themselves even if they end up screwing themselves royally but in reality perhaps some people need direction, as in, "you shouldn't be a lawyer, trust me on this one."

107, you sicken me. I pity your children, and likely the world who will have to deal with the consequences of the nastiness they take away from your deeply pickled soul. Isn't that the American dream: work hard, study hard, play by the rules and you will earn a shot at a middle class existence? Life isn't fair, for sure. But what is your message? What do you expect people to do if they aren't to the manor born? Is it impossible to work your way through most law schools without taking on albatross of student loan debt. Even if you're making double payments. you're stuck with that for a long time. Gramps, I don't think anyone here is asking for handout, just a job that will allow them to pay off the debt. I would never wish ill on anyone (bad luck as my Sicilian grandmother would say), but I wonder what you would do if you lost everything you had worked for in an instant: no health insurance, no purpose, the wife you mistreat leaves you----what would you do????

Can anyone tell me why we have any private firms/industries anymore? If the government can do everything more efficiently and we the people can pocket the profits instead of greedy companies, why not take over everything like we are trying to do with healthcare and now private student loans? Everything would be cheaper if we just limited profits by having the government run everything and set salaries. There will be no more rich and no more poor. Right?

99, could you point out just where the $55-60k small law firm jobs are? Here in Boston, most small law firms are offering $30-35k (or just asking for part-time experienced legal assistants at $10-15/hour, b/c they won't have to look over their shoulders as much as they would for a new attorney).

My guess is that when you people talk about limiting the legal profession to a select few you're thinking people like yourselves: WASPy, wealthy men with severely small penises (all of this narcissim must surely be compensating for something)...

99: Here's the problem though: law schools have been increasing their tuition each year by significant amounts. To take Penn, for example, law tuition went up from ~$16k in 1990 to ~$28k in 2000 to ~$46k this past year -- that's threefold in 20 years. The law schools themselves are far more complicit in the biglaw racket than you might think. Unless your family is wealthy or you're going for long term LRAP, you have to start at a firm to make a solid dent on your loans. For most people, paying off six figure loans isn't going to be possible on a non-biglaw $50k-$60k salary.

108,

How about, "You should go to a state law school where you won't get more than 30-40k in debt for 3 years."

Heck, if you have the credentials to get into a T14, you can often go to a public law school with a scholarship and graduate with even less debt, like I did. (My total law school debt was <20k). I'm absolutely not sympathetic to the argument that you're then gambling that your law school class rank won't be good and you'll be deprived of the "opportunity" to still get job offers despite the majority of your class doing better than you in law school.

Law is for people who enjoy practicing law. Believe it or not, there are many of us out there. If I was a little bit more cruel I'd laugh at all the miserable schmucks that got into it for the money, and are absolutely miserable despite their money.

114: Unless you live in California, Virginia, Michigan, or Texas, this isn't a viable option. If you have T14 credentials and want to practice biglaw, that's simply not going to happen out of most public law schools, which don't have any sort of national reputation. Unless you want to stick around the state in question or its one of those aforementioned top publics, you're seriously limiting your future mobility.

107 responding to 109:

Manor house? Gramps? I am not some crotchety old Daddy Warbucks. I happen to be a middle-aged guy from a blue collar family that "did everything right" just like 61. I didn't have the luck of being born into money or part of a protected class. I'll never get the same type of job as some WASPy Yale grad even though I am 10 times the better lawyer and have a trail of phis, bettas, magnas, sums, and laudes behind me. That’s life. 61 and I should have spent more time socializing with the rich kids than with our head in a book in the library. You live and learn.

Hard work and perseverance may lead to success, but it is no guarantee of success. How many hardworking small business owners go bankrupt even though they sunk every last nickel, dime, and ounce of sweat into their business? How many hardworking associates get fired from no “fault” of their own?

My post was not meant to comment on 61s character—only to raise the point that most people live a sh!tty existence and suffer setback after setback through no fault of their own. They may “deserve” the world, but are not “entitled” to anything.

The lesson is that the world is a hard cruel place. You must make your own way in life. No one is going to “give” you a job or look out for you. Find a way to be successful. You will probably fail. But be a man and stop whining about it.

114: Also, state resident law tuition at the top publics is climbing very high these days as well:

State Resident / Out of Stater
Boalt: $31k / $43k
Michigan: $41k / $44k
UVA: $37k / $42k
UCLA: $31k / $42k
Texas: $23k / $39k

Simple law of supply and demand:

If law school is too expensive and the returns don't justify the investment, don't go.

107,

Can't you read?

the sign says "do NOT feed the trolls"

60 - You graduated in 2001. I'm guessing you were laid off in 2008/09? That gives you 7+ years working as an associate at a big firm? If you still have crippling debt and no fall back plan at that point, I have to believe you saved and spent poorly. Let me know if I'm missing something here.

Special treatment for deadbeat lawyers? Are you kidding? This is a political non-starter. Congress will NEVER pass anything remotely like this.

Come on deadbeats; you borrowed the money so pay it back.

Elie are you really this fucking dumb?

Banks make money off people who pay back their loans. They lose money on people who fail to pay back their loans. Why in God's name would the taxpayers subsidize the bad loans? Do the taxpayers get a cut of the profit from the good loans? Or does government just exist for financial institutions to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers to fund their losses?

Seriously man, open up a book.

122:

Never let the laws of economics get in the way of nice, feel-good "social change" legislation.

Yes 10 - someone forced you to borrow money and now you whine like a child about keeping your promise to repay. Grow up.

Hey 30, you knew the terms and you took the money. Pay it back and stop crying.

35 - there was no "I only have to repay the loans if I can find a job" clause in your loan agreements. Just live up to your legally binding obligation to repay the money under the terms to which you agreed. Why do you insist that your failure to do well enough in law school to secure employment should now change the terms of the deal?

60: Gosh, that's really rough. Now pay back the money as you promised you would. "Hate" has nothing to do with this. Why do you think others should bear the cost of your failures?

Come on 86, if you don't like the rate, don't borrow the money. A simple answer.

115/117 - you are free to borrow all the money to finance your chance at BigLaw but please just pay the loans off later whether you succeed or fail. If you don't like the high tuition, don't pay it. No one forced anyone to go to law school.

I appreciate the fact that they're trying something, but this is a crap deal. Until we slash interest rates, being able to defer my loans for three years only means they increase and increase while this plan somehow "helps" me.

Dear Obama,

If you're so set on being a socialist like England, please take a page out of their book and slash interest rates to 0%.

Best,

Poor, severely-indebted law student

127, I have to agree with 112. Just where do you special order your extra-extra small condoms? Please share info with 125.

115/117

There's plenty of schools in Tier 1 that are not on that list that still provide very good opportunities. There are huge numbers of examples of people who "made it" in big law, but didn't graduate from a T14 school.

The difference is that to get in the door at a big-law firm from a non-T14 school you need to have a competitive class rank. I'll favorably compare a law review/ Top 10-15% from a strong regional school to a bottom of the barrel (ie >50%) T14 grad any day. (I'll possibly concede that HYS are different.)

Further, most large regional law firms (Which often pay close to biglaw) hire far more top students from regional schools than they do for T14 schools.

So essentially what you're gambling is the possibility that you won't be in the top tier of your law school class. On one side you have the risk that you won't place well vs having moderate student loan debt. On the other side you have crushing student loan debt vs the (at least this was true as of 06) high probability you will be able to land a big firm job despite being in the bottom third or bottom half of the class.

Maybe I have the benefit of hindsight, because I was near the top of my class in law school. But, speaking as someone who really does enjoy the practice of law, I think gong to a state school and risking having to take a low paying job was a great trade off for not having crushing debt and being able to actually consider one of those jobs if it came to that.

114, but not 129

131 - why do you assume that 127 and 125 are men? Oh, and very persuasive "argument" by the way.

Not 125 or 127

Um, if everyone can switch their private loans to federal loans, can't everyone then jump on the income-based repayment, which locks in a lower payment and then cancels the remainder of your loan after 25 years, and then in 25 years the feds are going to be socked with a huge amount of loan forgiveness? If all my loans qualified for the income-based repayment and forgiveness I could save an extra $500 a month in payments, which I could use to buy proper health insurance, perhaps buy a house, or hell, even save money for retirement so I don't have to be on the dole the rest of my life. As it stands now I'm stuck with $1250 monthly payment until I retire, and will never be able to save any money for anything.

All that aside, I'm all for letting me switch my private loans to federal loans. As alternatives I would also suggest :

1) allowing us to consolidate our private loans into a fixed rate, this way we are not subject to insane rate fluctuations caused by wall street gambling and fed maneuvers
2) allowing full tax deductions on all student loan interest (none of this sliding scale partial deduction bullshit)

If the ABA really wanted to help, they'd stop (1) accrediting so many unnecessary law schools and (2) condoning the outsourcing of legal work to India.

134 ==> you borrowed the money and agreed to the terms. Now pay it back. Begging for special treatment subsidized by others is pathetic. Your demand that student loan interest be fully deductible is especially rich - the gutless imbecile too inept to repay his/her debts is making demands upon the taxpayers. Mom and dad must be really proud of you.

133 AKA 125/127, men are more likely to accuse people of "crying" and mock depression in my experience. In this face of this cruelty, I assail them in their weakest point, literally and figuratively.

A non-women hating man with lots of student loan debt, but, alas, a firm job.

What is with the people on this board?

1) The federal government already paid out the money for the private loans, under FFEL. There may be some extremely small percentage of private student loans that are not made through FFEL, but not anything significant.

2) The federal government now has a choice: Pay for the defaults, and somehow force the economy to absorb thousands of broke lawyers and their families.

3) Or the government can take back the loans, which were already made with tax dollars, and collect the interest, while allowing the borrowers more generous repayment terms.

It's the most obvious win-win for the government since, well, ever, and a site full of people whining about federal spending and the economy can't see it? We already paid for the loans, you morons. YOU TOTAL FRICKING IDIOTS.

Oh, I get it. You guys think "take back the loans" means the government pays out.

That's not the case. Under FFEL the government advanced the original loan principal. The money went to the law school, which promptly awarded it to some overpriced professor who never showed up for office hours.

The loan is now a monetized income stream, totaling the value of the payments to be received. As such, it is a LOT more valuable than the original loan amount.

I don't have the details of the plan, but taking back the loans means the government assumes the value of that monetized stream of payments.

Now do you understand? The principal is already long gone. All that's left is what is owed, and that's valuable.

The bank is collecting interest on the income stream. The ABA is proposing that the government collect that interest instead.

And for all the "you assumed the debt so you have to make the payments..." Um, you are an even bigger idiot than the usual on this board. No one is proposing forgiving debt. The students can pay it back to a private lender, or the government, but they will pay it back.

Oh, I get it. You guys think "take back the loans" means the government pays out.

That's not the case. Under FFEL the government advanced the original loan principal. The money went to the law school, which promptly awarded it to some overpriced professor who never showed up for office hours.

The loan is now a monetized income stream, totaling the value of the payments to be received. As such, it is a LOT more valuable than the original loan amount.

I don't have the details of the plan, but taking back the loans means the government assumes the value of that monetized stream of payments.

Now do you understand? The principal is already long gone. All that's left is what is owed, and that's valuable.

The bank is collecting interest on the income stream. The ABA is proposing that the government collect that interest instead.

And for all the "you assumed the debt so you have to make the payments..." Um, you are an even bigger idiot than the usual on this board. No one is proposing forgiving debt. The students can pay it back to a private lender, or the government, but they will pay it back.

Wow, just wow.

First, 60 (some people are calling you 61, but I see you as 60 on my screen) please find a counselor. You deserve support, okay?

Second, to all of the "you borrowed it, now pay it back" morons, how, pray tell, do people without jobs pay the money back? Are you fucking idiots? Do you think they can just will money into existence? Newsflash, we have way more people than we need in order to fill the essential jobs because everything is mechanized and computerized and globalized, there are no local markets for most commodities any more. The wealth of our blue collar parents and grandparents was a fucking historical accident. The center cannot hold. And if we don't do something with the "extra people" and quick, we too will become a third world shithole.

And right now, you dumbass libertarians, the primary function of our government, what most of the money is spent on, is the protection of the financial assets of corporations. Full fucking stop. So pardon the liberals and progressives for giving more of a fuck about other human beings, rather than corporations that have the legal status of persons.

If you cannot recognize that human >>>>> corporation/profit/loan revenues, you are such moral wastelands that I despair for you.

141: "So pardon the liberals and progressives for giving more of a fuck about other human beings, rather than corporations that have the legal status of persons."

Yes, the liberals and progressives are all about giving more of a fuck about other human beings when it involves redistributing other peoples' money to those poor souls. If you want to give a fuck about other human beings, why don't you donate YOUR money to charities or YOU volunteer to help provide them with job counseling -- you know, things that will actually cost you money and time?

It's remarkably easy to whine about how the government should help bailout people, provide more aid, etc. -- but it's easy to forget that the money to finance such aid has to come from somewhere. It's going to mean higher taxes on individuals (who might be in financial trouble themselves) and corporations (who as a result will probably have to lay off workers -- the same individuals who you want to save).

Or if you don't support higher taxes, then you sound like a typical California liberal -- let's vote in all sorts of crazy aid packages because everyone deserves to be bailed out. But no, I don't want my taxes raised -- that'll hurt the poor too! Oh crap, the government's bankrupt? How did that happen?

Why should government money be used to funnel more money to corporations? Permitting corporations to exist, spending billions of dollars on our court systems to allow them to redistribute wealth among themselves, permitting them to buy lobbyists to pass favorable laws--all this government money is being spent for corporate good. That money "comes from somewhere" too.

You are entirely missing the point. The point is that the rules, as they are established, that govern lending allow the lending businesses to make a lot of money with very little risk. And taxpayers are shoring up that risk. If you really think their "right" to take that "risk" is more important than what happens to actual human beings as a result, and what will happen because the system is flat unsustainable, you think that all you want. But realize that it makes you an idiot, and a bad human being.

We were talking about government spending. You're now trying to shift the argument to volunteer work and set up some kind of lame straw liberal. Advocating for responsible government policies doesn't prevent me from volunteering. And I can bet that I do more volunteer work than you do, anyways, unless you've gone over the 200 hour mark this past year, because I sure as hell have, and that doesn't count all the time I've spent counseling people about their careers. Problem is, I can give all the good advice in the world, but the number of jobs is finite. Somebody is going to lose in this economy. Get a grip on reality.

@139 - "No one is proposing forgiving debt." In truth, I would forgive most debt. But that is not the proposal floating around.

@107 - "There are no guarantees." Not true if are CITI, BOFA, or any one of hundreds of other financial institutions.

141, thank you for speaking truth to the people who think they are so powerful on this comment board. 60, I am telling you from personal experience that being laid off is not the end of your life.

You will eventually get another gig. Trust me. Keep yourself out there networking, even if you have to be a document reviewer for a bit. Eventually all of the baby boomers will move out to pasture and someone is going to have to replace them in their gov't jobs, what is left of their law firms, etc.

Definitely appreciate 141 and everyone else who shut down the idiotic libertarian red herrins and straw men and affirmed consequents.

Still puzzled that no one seems to understand that an outstanding loan is a debt for the student and an asset for the entity that holds it. Guess lawyers really are sadly inadequate in basic finance.

I think the solution is to go beyond the current IBR + public service forgiveness, and just implement public service forgiveness all together.

Basically, forgive all federal student loan debt in exchange for a year of public service for every 10k in loans. Essentially, it's 10k a year plus a government salary for a lawyer to sign up, which isn't a bad deal for either party.

The plan could also incentivize law schools to pick up half the forgiven debt tab in the form of a tax break for private institutions. Might even target the break to law schools not affiliated with a university, like a lot of the money printing T4 schools are.

The other half, though, has to be a phase out of eligibility for student loans for law school tuition. Basically, the fed govt has to stop backing private law school loans in any form, and then cap Stafford and PLUS at, say, 15k a year.

It's not entirely a solution, but it will press the lower ranked schools, because they can't realistically charge 40k a year if students cant fund that. It will get the current crop of indebted lawyers a job and a way to make ends meet, and at least encourage a structural change to the system. In the interim, it'll get a bunch of unemployed lawyers doing public service for 10-20 years, depending on their debt load.

To paraphrase Michael Scott, this is a win-win-win.

147- I wish something like this would happen where there would be an end to the guarantee of financial aid to worthless law schools forcing them to lower tuition. However, it is NOT happening.

Law schools are the only racket that continue to ratchet up prices for worthless pieces of paper (even Social Security recipients saw a COL decrease this year). The scumbag administrators do not even think twice that they are committing government backed robbery. In fact, the law school administrators graduated from elite schools and found the most secure form of employment in the "legal profession"- running crappy law schools. Unlike their classmates who work at firms (and you know PRACTICE LAW) that have to generate profits, the law school administrators can simply increase tuition without hesitation.

Unfortunately, as the economy continues to worsen, many unsuspecting individuals will flock to law schools and borrow what is now approaching $160 K for three years, not including living expenses.

Indentured law graduates will not see any break, the government will not stop backing loans for worthless pieces of paper, and the Sun will continue to rise in the East.
Sincerely,
Failure At Life, Esq.*
*Admitted in NJ and NY

143: I wasn't in favor of the bailout either -- what's your point? Everyone who is against government bailout of reckless individuals isn't also in favor of government bailout of reckless corporations. Many of us would rather let the government allow horribly mismanaged corporations to fold so better managed ones can take their place on the market.

And pal, let's go through your list of government costs associated with corporations:

1) Permitting corporations to exist
This actually makes the government shitloads of money through registration fees, state taxes, and federal taxes. How does the government lose money having statutes already on the books allowing there to be corporations?

2) Allowing them to redistribute wealth among themselves
They earned that wealth! Sans some sketchy aspects of corporate law that they should tighten up (like siphoning money out of a shell entity, and allowing the shell to soak up liability) and government subsidies, corporate earnings are the money of the stockholders, people who invested in the company.

3) Permitting them to buy lobbyists to pass favorable laws
If anything, this costs the corporations money (to employ said lobbyists). And, let's get off our high horse here. You don't think unions, lawyers, doctors -- everyone basically -- doesn't have lobbyists on the payroll? Not that they're a good thing, but this is hardly unique to corporations.

Stop drinking the socialist Kool-Aid. Yes, there are bad corporations who mistreat their workers and cause harm to society, but there are many many more good ones that produce value and offer useful products, services to the marketplace. And lastly, corporations *gasp* are made up of people -- people who work for them, people who invest in them, the families of such people, other individuals & companies who buy/sell to them, etc. You're making it sound like corporations exist in a vacuum -- they don't.

149,

The whole system is a bailout.

1) Yes, it is good to allow corporations to exist in some form. But it is a choice. It is not neutral, it is not the way things have to be. After we decide they can exist, everything we do to give them powers, legal rights, etc., affects the balance of power between them and real "persons." So these choices are not morally or factually or fiscally neutral, and we need to think about them very carefully and think about the systems that are built in response to the rules we make. If you have any sophistication, you will realize that any rule has unintended consequences and tends to funnel corporate behavior (or human behavior) toward and away from certain things.

2) Re: redistribution of wealth. I always thought it was funny that a judge I worked for would get pissed about the inmate suing over chunky peanut butter (actually, they usually sued over legit. things, like poor healthcare, but nevermind that), but not about the glut of civil lawsuits we saw that were meritless--probably 1/3 to 1/2 of them involved corporations fighting over money, and the government spending a huge amount of its budget to referee these pointless fights. Point--the free market is very fucking costly. Although I am glad to see you aren't allergic to regulation, that shows some bloody sense. And frankly, I think it is pretty human if someone is locked up for life to get cranky about never getting to eat the kind of peanut-butter they find tolerable. Not that there shouldn't be rules to kick those suits, but I find that impulse much better than the impulse of the company who wants to get money from another company and wastes my tax dollars doing so even though they don't have a leg to stand on.

3) I really don't like money = speech as set forth in our current first amendment jurisprudence. I think it is, for lack of a better phrase and lack of sleep, fucking nonsense. I don't like lobbying at all for that reason. But as screwed up as unions can be (because the become hidebound and bureaucratic too) they benefit their members (usually) more than a lot of corporations, holy shit, Haliburton, KBR, need I say any more?

Wait, so why is it that any system that is not the status quo = socialism. And exactly what degree of socialism (which I view as the government paying for shit that is socially good out of pooled funds) do you object to? Are you okay with roads? Subsidized health care, salaries (by which I mean lower taxes), food and other goods for members of our military? In-home assistance for autistic children whose parents (all but the fabulously wealthy) who can afford it (and ditto for other mental health issues that require a lot of early intervention to permit the patient to function "normally")? You're again creating a false dichotomy--on your side, "pure" capitalism (no socialism in your little system, right?), but without the bad things you acknowledge exist in capitalism (so you're going to fix it all, good for you) and on my side, some kind of amorphous moronic socialism, which is really a term you're using as to set up another straw man--I'm not going to buy it this time either.

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-short-c-63.html] Ugg Classic Short Boots [/URL]

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-46.html] Ugg Classic Tall Boots[/URL]

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-56.html] UGG Classic Cardy [/URL]