come play with us at [url=top-law-schools.com]TLS[/url][img]http://mylsn.info/replaced_post.png[/img]

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
anyriotgirl

Platinum
Posts: 8349
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:54 am

have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby anyriotgirl » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:28 pm

The American Bar Association has filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the United States Department of Education to stop the Department’s decision to retroactively refuse to honor loan forgiveness commitments it made under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) to individuals who have dedicated their careers to public service.

The suit, which also includes four individual plaintiffs who were denied eligibility under PSLF, details how the Department of Education changed the eligibility requirement for work that was clearly “public service” after already approving the work and after individuals made decisions and loan repayments based on those approvals.
Last edited by anyriotgirl on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:44 am

Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby Nebby » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:30 am

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent

User avatar
kellyfrost

Platinum
Posts: 6361
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby kellyfrost » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:57 pm

Nebby wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent



Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby Nebby » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:37 pm

kellyfrost wrote:
Nebby wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent



Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?

What do you mean exactly?

User avatar
kellyfrost

Platinum
Posts: 6361
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby kellyfrost » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:19 pm

Nebby wrote:
kellyfrost wrote:
Nebby wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent



Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?

What do you mean exactly?


Maybe something a letter more meaningful and detailed. "This case could set interesting precendent." What else are you going to tell us? That water is wet too? Jesus Christ man!
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby cavalier1138 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:56 pm

kellyfrost wrote:Maybe something a letter more meaningful and detailed. "This case could set interesting precendent." What else are you going to tell us? That water is wet too? Jesus Christ man!


This can't be that complicated to figure out on your own...

If the courts side with the DOE, it could set the tone for future surprises based on the whims of whichever administration is in charge at any given point in time. It could open the door for the DOE to declare all non-governmental PI work to be non-qualifying, and more importantly, it could allow them to retroactively declare 9+ years of work invalid for the program.

And if the court sides with the ABA, there are plenty of gray-area jobs that may suddenly become "public service".

What sort of "meaningful and detailed" analysis do you think anyone can offer without even seeing the complaint?

User avatar
kellyfrost

Platinum
Posts: 6361
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby kellyfrost » Mon Dec 26, 2016 4:39 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
kellyfrost wrote:Maybe something a letter more meaningful and detailed. "This case could set interesting precendent." What else are you going to tell us? That water is wet too? Jesus Christ man!


This can't be that complicated to figure out on your own...

If the courts side with the DOE, it could set the tone for future surprises based on the whims of whichever administration is in charge at any given point in time. It could open the door for the DOE to declare all non-governmental PI work to be non-qualifying, and more importantly, it could allow them to retroactively declare 9+ years of work invalid for the program.

And if the court sides with the ABA, there are plenty of gray-area jobs that may suddenly become "public service".

What sort of "meaningful and detailed" analysis do you think anyone can offer without even seeing the complaint?


That's better analysis than Nebby provided.
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GreenEggs

Gold
Posts: 3593
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby GreenEggs » Mon Dec 26, 2016 4:55 pm

In the DOE's defense, this doesn't disqualify prior qualifying payments correct? You can still count those, you just can't continue to count future ones?

edit: nope that's exactly what they're not doing... i don't know why i thought the opposite
Last edited by GreenEggs on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
MCFC

Platinum
Posts: 9695
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby MCFC » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:57 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

So I had a pretty slow day earlier this week and actually read the complaint. I'm not sure I agree, at least as it pertains to the work these people were doing.

Though that's admittedly more a gut feeling than any underlying knowledge of the statute or regulations.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:19 pm

Having read part of the complaint, I can kind of see viewing some of those jobs as more lobbying-ish than providing direct services (not saying that should necessarily disqualify them, but I think there's a distinction). But if they approved the jobs originally going back on that is really crappy.

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:33 pm

I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.

PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).

I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!

Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.

Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.

My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."

Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.

dixiecupdrinking

Gold
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:08 pm

Hope they establish some good law in this case. Otherwise this is a hell of a blueprint for Trump's DOE to cannibalize PSLF. The retroactive revocation of certification is particularly chilling.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx

Gold
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby XxSpyKEx » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:28 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.

PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).

I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!

Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.

Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.

My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."

Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.


Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_fo

User avatar
LeDique

Diamond
Posts: 13464
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby LeDique » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:30 pm

p. dubious aba fucked up the joint/single-employer test here, not that im clear on what version applies.

User avatar
LeDique

Diamond
Posts: 13464
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby LeDique » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:34 pm

wait nevermind i went to read the complaint lol why is main aba a party

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:46 pm

XxSpyKEx wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.

PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).

I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!

Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.

Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.

My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."

Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.


Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_fo


Yeah, I've read contradictory things. Some articles said they were employed by the 501(c)(3) arm. Idk. Still, it would seem their work falls under "public interest law" and the same deference arguments would apply.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:42 pm

LeDique wrote:wait nevermind i went to read the complaint lol why is main aba a party

Because without PSLF how can they retain talented lawyers???

User avatar
XxSpyKEx

Gold
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?

Postby XxSpyKEx » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:06 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.

PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).

I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!

Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.

Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.

My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."

Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.


Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_fo


Yeah, I've read contradictory things. Some articles said they were employed by the 501(c)(3) arm. Idk. Still, it would seem their work falls under "public interest law" and the same deference arguments would apply.


Based on what I've read, only attorneys who fall under ABA's 503(c)(6) were denied PSLF. That's also what the news articles on the ABA's own website seems to imply.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.