« on: July 10, 2006, 09:54:20 AM »
While I am yet to check with the Bar in any state, this seems pretty tough, if not unfair, to regulate. I mean, with the prohibitive costs associated with making it to law school (let alone a good law school) in addition to the exoribitant (and rising) fees of attending, I think it is very reasonable that those from a "lower-income-no-silver-spoon-in-hand" could find themselves with a large amount of consumer debt to pay off. And by no means does this mean that he/she is more likely to engage in fraudulent activities as a result of holding their JD. While statements made earlier regarding the likelihood of those who are irresponsible with consumer debt to feel pressure to use funds illegally might be logical to a degree, they are based on generalizations that are not able to support sound policy. Just because one graduates law school with a high/massive amount of consumer debt (again, this is an arbitrary label) does not mean he/she is irresponsible. In certain cases, credit cards may offer a better option (maybe the only option) than student/private loans to cover expenses incurred while in law school.
I don't think there is any question that having little to no consumer debt makes one's life much easier. Unfortunately, in today's world it's difficult to avoid for a lower-income person with little to no financial help seeking an professional degree (law, med, etc.). If such a policy exists, it better be very specific in its enforcement. At its root, this approach is discriminatory by favoring the well-to-do (stronger financial position out of the gate doesn't say anything about responsibility).