I don’t have sympathy for the individual here given the many factors discussed in the opinion that collectively suggest a lack of personal integrity. I don’t think her husband’s student loan debt deserved mention or consideration if she didn’t take out those loans and isn’t responsible for them. Bringing them up seemed an unnecessary pile-on.
Lots of people graduating from law school these days have over $100K in student loan debt. Whether or not that’s a wise choice is a separate matter. But even someone who goes to an accredited public university law school with in state tuition can rack up that much debt. (Ex: estimated 3 year COA – including living expenses – for ASU law school with in state tuition is $180K.) Assuming the student loans are not presently in default, I don’t think they should affect the character and fitness determination. Nor should the mere fact that you are on one of the several income based repayment plans that are provided for by the Dept. of Education.
On the other hand, if someone has other debt in default (e.g., credit cards) or some other history of bad debt, that is fair to consider. The person in this case was deemed to lack personal responsibility and integrity, in part because she had dodged several debts for years until they were finally just written off by the creditors or collection agencies.