well, tbf, the Ohio Bar told her to come back and reapply in a few years. But, smh over that kinda debt, which obviousuly, will never be repaid (leaving the taxpayers on the hook).
What a piece of work!
Really!
The lack of owning up to her responsibilities is what gets me.
She waits for debts to get old so that she doesn’t have to pay them! Who keeps giving her credit???
Somewhat misleading thread title.
The law grad amassed about $340,000 in student loans; the remaining $560,000 were student loans taken out by her allegedly disabled spouse.
The law grad had filed about 60 lawsuits prior to finishing law school. Many, maybe most, of these lawsuits were deemed to be frivolous filings.
The law grad applicant was determined to be unfit by the Supreme Court of Ohio to sit for the state bar exam due to her “ongoing lack of integrity, abuse of process and neglect of financial responsibility”.
Although not stated in an explicit manner, it appears that the law school graduate was denied clearance based on her fitness and character to sit for the bar exam for Ohio, not denied admission to the state bar (which would not be an issue before the court since she was not cleared to sit for the state bar exam).
I agree the thread title is misleading. What got her in trouble was practicing law without a license, “working” the system to get things like low income housing, and $340k in her own debts (plus $560k of her disabled spouse’s) that she never intends to repay. The 60 frivolous lawsuits she’d filed over the years didn’t help.
Either way… this is stupefying.
Administratrix? Really? Is that related to dominatrix? What is wrong with good old Adminstrator? This feels slightly misogynistic to me - anyone else?
@sherimba03 I just googled the term administratrix and it apparently is a legal term specifically for the female administrator of an estate. No idea why they need gender specific terms but it is at least an accepted legal term.
@austinmshauri : Agree that the unauthorized practice of law was a factor specifically noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in its written ruling in this matter.
If this weren’t an official document, I would think this is an unbelievable made-for-tv movie.
Several of the 60 civil lawsuits filed by the law grad prior to graduating law school were successful including a lawsuit against an attorney for whom she worked for back pay of at least minimum wage which resulted in a settlement of over $16,500 plus legal fees. Whether or not law students should be paid at least minimum wage during internships for private attorneys has been a heavily discussed and debated issue for decades.
Many of her other lawsuits involving security deposits for rentals were also successful.
Both the law grad and her husband suffer from disabilities.
Her medical malpractice lawsuits were dismissed because she could not afford to pay medical experts for the required certificates of merit.
The law graduate received very positive reviews for her work at a law school legal aid clinic.
P.S. Noteworthy is that the Ohio Supreme Court expressly permitted her to reapply to sit for the bar exam in 5 years (2024). This process would involve reexamination of her character and fitness.
If “character” = “paying down some of those loans”, she won’t be sitting for the test in five years either.
Character does not necessarily equate to “paying down some of those [student] loans”. However, this is an issue that has been before the Ohio Supreme Court.
In the matter under discussion, the law grad plans to pay the minimum required amount for 25 years as permitted by student loan repayment rules. This will not reduce the loans and may result in being deemed unfit to sit for the state bar exam, but that issue has not been determined at this time regarding this applicant.
“In the matter under discussion, the law grad plans to pay the minimum required amount for 25 years as permitted by student loan repayment rules.”
The grad is 59 years old and disabled. She may well be deceased 25 years from now. The fact that it’s even possible to amass this kind of debt for a JD degree from Capital University Law School demonstrates that something is seriously amiss when it comes to law school and student loans. In my opinion, there needs to be a firm cap on loan amounts, like there is for undergrad. As it stands now, schools like Capital get their money up front, and somebody else is left holding the bag.
I think a lot of the loan total must have come from accrued interest. She spent 10 years with no employment but as the executor of her father’s estate, and many, many years doing other unpaid or low-wage work.
In another much more famous case a few years ago involving a different Ohio resident law graduate denied due to his student loan debt of about $250,000, his loan was sold more than once & new lenders added on massive fees of something in the neighborhood of $30,000 as a penalty. In fact, if I recall correctly, he was assessed more than one penalty.
In the instant matter, it is reasonable to assume that a large portion of the $340,000 of student loan debt is from accrued interest. How much, if any, is due to penalties imposed by lenders has not been shared. It is also unclear–at least to me–when the law grad became disabled or partially disabled.
The law grad understands and admits that her student loans will never be fully repaid. She has stated that she plans to comply with the loan option which permits income based repayment for 25 years after which the remaining balance will be forgiven.
The law grad’s dilemma will hopefully draw attention to the student loan industry which makes loans not based on creditworthiness or on liklihood of lucrative employment after graduation, but, instead, relies on the ridiculous provisions in the bankruptcy laws which make student loan debt almost impossible to discharge. Fortunately, a recent ruling by a bankruptcy judge in another case involving law school debt has placed some degree of sanity back into the bankruptcy laws. Let’s hope & pray that the appellate courts agree.
P.S. Important to consider that the law grad did not choose to become disabled, nor did she choose to suffer from alleged medical malpractice which compounded her injury. She lives in poverty with a disabled spouse.
In an attempt to “read between the lines”, I suspect that the Ohio Supreme Court Board of Commissioners On Character and Fitness do not view the law grad as a person of reprehensible character because they explicitly permit her to reapply for clearance to sit for the Ohio bar exam in 5 years.
Maybe this is commonplace in these type of matters in Ohio, or maybe the Ohio Supreme Court Board of Commissioners anticipate that within that 5 year period of time that the courts or Congress will change the bankruptcy laws back to their pre-2006 standards which treated student loan debt as dischargeable.
It is noteworthy that the first determination by two county bar members who interviewed her was that the law grad, Cynthia Rogers, was fit to sit for the state bar exam.
The gist of the argument for rejecting her was this,
I don’t read that ruling to say she was denied because she had too much debt. But that she incurred that debt with no thought or consideration how that debt would be repaid (and really an expectation that it would not be repaid). And that she abused the judicial system on multiple occasions. Did not display the character and fitness (I went through one of those exams in Ohio decades ago) required to sit for the Ohio bar exam.
Generally speaking Ohio (and I think other states as well but no first hand experience) believe in second chances (definitely applies in disciplinary actions with attorneys). Let her come back in 5 years and show how she has changed. Is she taking the debt more seriously and making efforts to repay it. Maybe she can spend time talking to other students (law students and undergrads) about debt levels and impacts of them. Respect the legal system over that time period. Get involved in legit legal matters.
Student loan debt was dischargeable prior to 2006 but in my experience it was more theoretical than real. Prior to the enactment of the bankruptcy code (in 1978 I believe), student loan debts were dischargeable. But over time, limits were put on them. Working for a bankruptcy court in the 90s, the undue hardship test was pretty much impossible to establish.
But I think you have to be careful what you wish for. Make student loan debts dischargeable and they will be harder to obtain which will make college/grad school much less likely for lower SES kids.
Unbelievable as it might sound, a couple of years ago, Capital presented this individual as one of its success stories:
https://law.capital.edu/News.aspx?id=38034
It’s a safe bet that you won’t find Ms. Rodgers’ story in any of Capital’s glossy admission brochures these days.
@TheBigChef: Thank you for posting the write-up about Cynthia Rogers. Putting a face on this matter and noting her accomplishments & dedication to helping others illustrates the conflicting concerns in this matter.
@Sue22: Agree that lack of financial responsibility was the primary concern of the Board.