Reminds me of a matter in Arizona several years ago in which a whistleblower ratted out an employee of the Arizona court system for the unauthorized practice of law. The Arizona Supreme Court Justices were aware of the UPL by this competent writer of death row appeals thereby quietly approving of his much needed and appreciated efforts on behalf of death row inmates. The whistleblower lost his job with the state legal system and was unable to secure employment as an attorney in the state thereafter. The UPL practioner was given a minor punishment.
Like the UPL practioner in Arizona, Ms. Rodgers’ situation makes us aware of some of the unfortunate realities and pressing issues of the practice of law.
Many were successful. Several dismissed because she could not afford to hire a medical expert for the required certificates of merit. And the county bar members who initially interviewed her approved her application to sit for the state bar exam.
Nevertheless, misuse / abuse of the legal system was addressed and noted as a concern by the Board.
In my opinion, it appears that the impoverished, partially disabled law grad was & is suffering psychologically which led to the exercise of poor judgment and that this was recognized by the Board.
I’m just not as sympathetic toward her as you are.
Her “almost 60” lawsuits include:
-The doctors who treated her after both of her accidents
-The attorney who gave her an internship
-Multiple landlords, for the return of security deposits, apparently after they had to evict her.
-Anyone who had ever been associated with the car bought despite the fact that the warning light came on when she test drove it.
It’s true that some of her lawsuits have been settled. It think it’s likely that at least some of those she sued chose not to fight in court because it would be cheaper to pay her than to pay attorney’s costs.
As to her husband, he is “semi-retired and filing for disability”. If her share of their common student loan debt is 340K his must be in the neighborhood of 560K. I wonder what the story there is. How is it even possible to rack up over a half million dollars in student loans?
I think that we can agree that you and I are looking at two different sides of the same coin.
P.S. @Sue22: I think that our differing viewpoints are fueled by our dissimiliar view of this case. You appear to be focusing on the individual–which is fair & reasonable–while I am concerned about the larger issues. Basically, a micro versus macro approach to the case.
Let’s be clear here, the law school loan “industry” is almost always us taxpayers, as the full Cost of Attendance is available for borrowing from Uncle Sam, no questions asked.
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.
