Top Law Schools

More than 550,000 people have signed up for a federal program that promises to repay their remaining student loans after they work 10 years in a public service job.

But now, some of those workers are left to wonder if the government will hold up its end of the bargain — or leave them stuck with thousands of dollars in debt that they thought would be eliminated.

Because 10 years of service are required, the first wave of qualified workers will be eligible to submit applications for debt forgiveness in October.

Mr. Rudert submitted the certification form in 2012 and received a letter from FedLoan affirming that his work as a lawyer at Vietnam Veterans of America, a nonprofit aid group, qualified him for the forgiveness program. But in 2016, after submitting his latest annual recertification note to FedLoan, he got a denial note.

The decision was retroactive, he was told. None of his previous work for the group would be considered valid for the loan forgiveness program.

What changed? Mr. Rudert said he did not know. After filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he received a reply from FedLoan saying that his application “had initially been approved in error.” He has not been told what the error was, and has not found any way to appeal the decision.

Stylnator wrote:

Because 10 years of service are required, the first wave of qualified workers will be eligible to submit applications for debt forgiveness in October.

Where exactly is the money going to come from in October? Does the department of ed specifically have $$ earmarked for PSLF?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

Npret wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that this is 4 people out of 550,000 who've signed up. Also, it's crappy that they would change their mind like that, but except for the veterans work guy, the three others were employed in more lobbying/professional associations than in organizations providing direct legal services of any kind. So I don't know that people going into classic PI should be worried (at least, not any more than ever, since there's no guarantee that PSLF won't get taken away at some point).

The problem is being able to retroactively take away years of what people were told were qualifying employment. I don't see how that can possibly be valid.

zot1 wrote:I haven't dealt with detrimental reliance much (so my bad if this is the wrong concept to think of), but I'm willing to bet many people made career/life choices based on the promise of forgiveness.

Nacho_Verde wrote:

zot1 wrote:I haven't dealt with detrimental reliance much (so my bad if this is the wrong concept to think of), but I'm willing to bet many people made career/life choices based on the promise of forgiveness.

I've seen many people taking lower t14 at sticker because of loan forgiveness.

Desert Fox wrote:Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 50 years.

guybourdin wrote:

Stylnator wrote:

Because 10 years of service are required, the first wave of qualified workers will be eligible to submit applications for debt forgiveness in October.

Where exactly is the money going to come from in October? Does the department of ed specifically have $$ earmarked for PSLF?

Not sure I understand the question: the department of ed is the one who holds the loans that are being forgiven, right? So they don't have to pay themselves to pay off the loan, they can just write it off or something.

Rigo wrote:550,000 people. Damn.

Desert Fox wrote:Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

cavalier1138 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

I mean, Congress can do pretty much anything via statute, but I have a hard time believing a court would take it seriously.

Judge: Didn't plaintiff detrimentally rely on the terms of the contract?
Defense: Yes, your honor. But as you can see, Congress told them ten years after the fact that they weren't supposed to do that. The plaintiff was retroactively unreasonable.

Desert Fox wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Can't congress nuke detrimental reliance in the same act that release PLIF? It's not a constitutional requirement.

And the masses aren't going to cry tears for lawyers making more than the average person getting 200 thousand dollar subsidies to go to gold plated law schools. Esp. when you'd just be forced to continue to pay the very fair 10% for another 15 years.

I mean, Congress can do pretty much anything via statute, but I have a hard time believing a court would take it seriously.

Judge: Didn't plaintiff detrimentally rely on the terms of the contract?
Defense: Yes, your honor. But as you can see, Congress told them ten years after the fact that they weren't supposed to do that. The plaintiff was retroactively unreasonable.

Yea but if congress says: that detrimental reliance can't be used wrt PLIF then it's not optional for the court to apply the law as explicitly written. Unless you have some constitutional reason. Congress can make mince meat of common law at it's pleasure.