Where do contract / temp attorneys come from? Forum

[Verity]

I never said take the bar exam in Kansas. Find something else dude. How do you remain committed to the legal profession despite your years of failure? You can retrain for a new field through a local state school extension or something.

But I think we've finally gotten to the root of your issue -- you don't want to find a dead end desk job making 30-40k because you think "it's all going to go to servicing your debt anyway so what's the point?" Are they seriously going to take more than 50% of your paycheck leaving you nothing to pay for food, heat, transportation? I am not familiar with the Federal Debt Collections act you speak of, but I highly doubt it. Every time I've heard of someone deeply in debt (with hospital bills, etc.) the two parties agree on a payment plan that is usually more like 25-30% of their paycheck. And we have not even discussed IBR, which may not be available to you, but should be available to some of us.

All of the bullshit you're spitting needs to stop. Even acknowledging that your advice is not easy to follow by any means, it's also not at all practical. How likely do you think it would be to succeed at opening your own firm in a new place with no money or support? And let's not forget that markets matter. When the market's bad, your talent means little.

You really don't have to be a lawyer or a law student to know what's going on, just like you don't need to be an unskilled worker to know that their odds are pretty bad. Look at market data. The schools are busy lying left and right. Even those in the T1 are trying their hand at a little distortion.

areyouinsane's warnings and tales are a sobering look into part of the statistics that hardly get brought up. Not everyone's gonna end up like him, but more and more probably will.

[A'nold]

Really? Ad homs?

Yeah, from you:

He is a troll. His sole purpose is to go onto law school sites and scare the crap out of naive 0L's that believe his crap. There are real people struggling out there for legitimate reasons. He is not one. I'm sorry to ruin the image of your fairytale hero.

O.k., I'm starting to think you guys are just messing with me now. Of course I am attacking areyouinsanes trustworthiness because the whole point of my comments is to out him as a troll with an ulterior motive and to warn 0L's out there that he is not the norm or even real in most respects.

I have not attacked your character once.

[Verity]

O.k., I'm starting to think you guys are just messing with me now. Of course I am attacking areyouinsanes trustworthiness because the whole point of my comments is to out him as a troll with an ulterior motive and to warn 0L's out there that he is not the norm or even real in most respects. = the whole point of my comments is to ad hom areyouinsane

I have not attacked your character once.

Wow.

[A'nold]

O.k., I'm starting to think you guys are just messing with me now. Of course I am attacking areyouinsanes trustworthiness because the whole point of my comments is to out him as a troll with an ulterior motive and to warn 0L's out there that he is not the norm or even real in most respects. = the whole point of my comments is to ad hom areyouinsane

I have not attacked your character once.

Wow.

No wonder you have the reputation you have around here......

[vanwinkle]

But I think we've finally gotten to the root of your issue -- you don't want to find a dead end desk job making 30-40k because you think "it's all going to go to servicing your debt anyway so what's the point?" Are they seriously going to take more than 50% of your paycheck leaving you nothing to pay for food, heat, transportation? I am not familiar with the Federal Debt Collections act you speak of, but I highly doubt it. Every time I've heard of someone deeply in debt (with hospital bills, etc.) the two parties agree on a payment plan that is usually more like 25-30% of their paycheck. And we have not even discussed IBR, which may not be available to you, but should be available to some of us.

Seriously, this is your plan? Advocate settlement or discharge of student loan debts? You're basically putting a "HI I'M AN IDIOT" sign around your neck with this post. Here's why:

You cannot discharge student loan debts in bankruptcy.

Okay, yes, it's technically possible, but you have to convince a federal bankruptcy judge that you have an "undue hardship" which both 1) was totally unforseeable at the time you went to law school and 2) is not something you can possibly rectify anytime soon. Unless you can meet some pretty stringent requirements, which are laid down by federal law, you cannot discharge those debts. And no, "being six figures in debt while making $30K/yr" is not considered a valid form of undue hardship, since it was not only forseeable, it was the choice you made by taking those loans. And since you can't discharge the debts, lenders have zero incentive to settle with you. Why take 25-30% of what you owe them when they can just keep collecting from you until they get the whole thing? Yeah, those debts can follow you for the rest of your life, and (unless you get into a program like IBR, assuming it sticks around) you have no hope of ever discharging that debt.

My first LRW assignment in 1L was a case involving a law school grad who was $150K in debt and trying to discharge her loans. It was pretty sobering.

[Mick Haller]

So you are saying that if you are making 30k per year (2000 per month in NJ after taxes) and you have 150k in student loans ($980 per month on 30 year repayment) that they can literally take half your paycheck? you cannot even afford rent and food on $1000 per month.

I've never advocated for discharge. As a long-time user of this site I am well aware that this is not possible. I am merely saying that IBR or some other cap must exist to allow people to keep enough money for food, water and shelter. And if none exists, there should be some way to work out a lower payment directly with your lender.

[Rooney]

Okay, yes, it's technically possible, but you have to convince a federal bankruptcy judge that you have an "undue hardship" which both 1) was totally unforseeable at the time you went to law school and 2) is not something you can possibly rectify anytime soon. Unless you can meet some pretty stringent requirements, which are laid down by federal law, you cannot discharge those debts. And no, "being six figures in debt while making $30K/yr" is not considered a valid form of undue hardship, since it was not only forseeable, it was the choice you made by taking those loans. And since you can't discharge the debts, lenders have zero incentive to settle with you. Why take 25-30% of what you owe them when they can just keep collecting from you until they get the whole thing? Yeah, those debts can follow you for the rest of your life, and (unless you get into a program like IBR, assuming it sticks around) you have no hope of ever discharging that debt.

My first LRW assignment in 1L was a case involving a law school grad who was $150K in debt and trying to discharge her loans. It was pretty sobering.

And so much for any state laws mandating a set percentage of income debt collectors can take. The Fed will garnish your wages
This article mentions the '25-30% what you owe' path: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/student- ... ld-happen/

[JCougar]

I am certainly a loser (and complete and total failure to boot), but I'm not a liar. I know how hard it is to believe this shit when you're a 0 L getting all "Learned Hand" about E&E supplements and study groups and what font to put your personal statement in, etc. But it is real, and it's gruesome.

This is the big problem I have with the legal profession. It makes people feel like losers just because they can't score well on some impractical and crudely-developed exams, or because of their school's prestige alone.

You mentioned earlier that law is the only profession where your career path is determined before you even start your career. Law school is hard and the people who finish at the top work hard, but the exams you take in law school have little to do with the actual work you do as a lawyer. To top it off, the classes are run by professors that often have zero training in actual teaching, and even less training in developing exams and grading criterion that are objective and actually mean something about your viability as a lawyer.

Yet the "winners" are determined even before the race has started. And consequently, the losers are cast off before they've even had a chance to prove themselves as a lawyer. Many years ago, when tuition was not so astronomical, it may have been feasible for median students to work for cheap and grind it out for a few years and prove themselves at small firms or doing temp work. These days, the crippling debt prevents this from being in any way a functional path.

And even if you end up with Biglaw, the debt people are now incurring from paying sticker at a T14 pretty much shackles you to Biglaw for at least 4-5 years, if you are good with your money. And these people have little to fall back on if their firm goes under or if they get laid off. Berkeley at out of state tuition is now approaching $60K per year, plus the astronomical cost of living incurred by living in the Bay Area. Many of the other T14s are close to eclipsing $50K/year in tuition, if they have not already done so. And the ones in NYC, SF, DC, or Boston will force you to ring up another $20K/year in living expenses. That's well over $200K in debt for students with no family finances to support them. If you strike out at OCI, your firm goes under, you get no-offered because of the economy, etc., there's pretty much no safety net even though you've done everything right.

Law school tuition simply has to stop rising. And it will never do so until prosepctive students refuse to pay full price tuition. Working shitlaw for 5 years and learning how to actually become a lawyer was once not a bad alternative, when law school tuition was less than $10K/year. But the dream of biglaw and the promise of models and bottles has distorted the entire legal industry...from the school application process to t he job application process, and beyond, when you are forced to work insane hours just so that you can break even on your investment (if you're one of the lucky ones).

[Verity]

O.k., I'm starting to think you guys are just messing with me now. Of course I am attacking areyouinsanes trustworthiness because the whole point of my comments is to out him as a troll with an ulterior motive and to warn 0L's out there that he is not the norm or even real in most respects. = the whole point of my comments is to ad hom areyouinsane

I have not attacked your character once.

Wow.

No wonder you have the reputation you have around here......

A.) Disagree w/areyouinsane = fine
B.) Call areyouinsane a liar with no evidence = ad hom
C.) B + carping about being subject of ad homs = stupid

Be angry with the universe, not with me.

[Mick Haller]

And so much for any state laws mandating a set percentage of income debt collectors can take. The Fed will garnish your wages
This article mentions the '25-30% what you owe' path: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/student- ... ld-happen/

Exactly...this is what I was getting at.

You want my advice? Having your student debts go into default is survivable. The world will not end. Your girlfriend will not break up with you. The creditor will not show up at your house with a guy named Rocco looking for a few hundred dollars.

He also mentions negotiating directly with the creditors, showing them his pay stub and paying only a certain percentage of his income towards his debts.

[vanwinkle]

So you are saying that if you are making 30k per year (2000 per month in NJ after taxes) and you have 150k in student loans ($980 per month on 30 year repayment) that they can literally take half your paycheck? you cannot even afford rent and food on $1000 per month.

I've never advocated for discharge. As a long-time user of this site I am well aware that this is not possible. I am merely saying that IBR or some other cap must exist to allow people to keep enough money for food, water and shelter. And if none exists, there should be some way to work out a lower payment directly with your lender.

Unless you discharge it, they can garnish a significant percentage of your paycheck each month, and yes, they will. While there may be a "cap", it would be in the form of reduced payments during your current period of hardship, with the assumption that your payments would increase once you started making money again. IBR merely formalizes and streamlines this process, but would still leave you on the hook for a very long time.

Saying that something "must exist", just because it would be harsh otherwise, is remarkably naive.

[Mick Haller]

Saying that something "must exist", just because it would be harsh otherwise, is remarkably naive.

Did you read the ATL article? Options exist...

[luthersloan]

How easy it is got get out from under student loans turns it seems in large part on wheather their are private or federal. The private leanders, based on that ATL aritcle and the follow up are willing to settle in some cases, the feds are not.

[bouakedojo]

Wow. Awesome writing skills, areyouinsane.

You remind me of a legal version of David Sedaris.

Also, stop arguing with him people. Let him continue to do his thing.

[timbs4339]

Wow. Awesome writing skills, areyouinsane.

You remind me of a legal version of David Sedaris.

Also, stop arguing with him people. Let him continue to do his thing.

Agreed. Even if flame (or some crazy JDU scambot that copy/pastes anecdotes from the scamblogs), he shows a knowledge of the legal profession unmatched by 99% of TLS posters. Stories are funny and I'm eagerly waiting for the next one.

I also doubt that a single person has been deterred from going to law school because of his posts. So I don't know why the posters are so vigorously attacking him.

[Rooney]

Saying that something "must exist", just because it would be harsh otherwise, is remarkably naive.

Did you read the ATL article? Options exist...

Oh oops. All the loans in that ATL article are PRIVATE loans, who will end up taking a reduced rate after they ream your credit rating. Federal ones=non negotiable

[Rooney]

Also, stop arguing with him people. Let him continue to do his thing.

[areyouinsane]

The PBS show "NOW" did a feature on student loan nightmares not long ago:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/525/studen ... ories.html

There are many, many people in my boat. Many are actually worse off (like those who can't just leave the country due to kids/family/elderly parents they must care for).

It may surprise you to learn that Sallie Mae actually prefers defaults, and brags to their shareholders about how collections is a rpaidly growing revenue stream for the company:

http://studentloanjustice.org/argument.htm

There is no way out other than suicide or leaving the country once you start falling seriously behind on these debts. The motivation to take a $20 an hour job for the purpose of paying them back is laughable, and akin to a modern-day debtor's prison. What's especially galling is watching those who bought McMansions and racked up credit card bills at Macy's file a quick Ch. 7 and discharge 3 to 4 X the debt I have, and furthermore get to keep all the toys and junk they bought on credit! The current bankruptcy laws reward those who acted the most irresponsibly, while brutally punishing folks who tried to better themselves via study, sacrifice, and education. It's a shit deal.

Never before in our history have so many been in debt to so few, in exchange for so little.

[cinephile]

Too bad you can't pay off your student loans with credit cards/other loans and then declare bankrupcy on the discharable debt.

[crossarmant]

What's especially galling is watching those who bought McMansions and racked up credit card bills at Macy's file a quick Ch. 7 and discharge 3 to 4 X the debt I have, and furthermore get to keep all the toys and junk they bought on credit! The current bankruptcy laws reward those who acted the most irresponsibly, while brutally punishing folks who tried to better themselves via study, sacrifice, and education. It's a shit deal.

Never before in our history have so many been in debt to so few, in exchange for so little.

This does annoy the piss out of me. You can rack of tons of debt by being irresponsible and reckless, buying into the absurd consumer rush, while making no money and then declare bankruptcy and you're free. Yet people who are responsible and intelligent enough to try and better themselves and work well within society on a perceived return cannot get away from debt. I can understand why it's non-dischargeable, but it's still preposterous that it's tied to you forever yet poor fiscal responsibility and desire to buy trinkets is permissible by our society. Shows where priorities lie, eh?

Too bad you can't pay off your student loans with credit cards/other loans and then declare bankrupcy on the discharable debt.

+1

I mean, if your credit's good enough to scoop up like 20 credit cards with ~$5000 limits, why not? Easier than paying $100,000. Absurd society of debt and priorities we live in.

[Verity]

Never before in our history have so many been in debt to so few, in exchange for so little.

Most aphoristic line on TLS.

[Heartford]

Never before in our history have so many been in debt to so few, in exchange for so little.

Most aphoristic line on TLS.

Meh- I kind of wish he had just directly quoted Churchill, and maybe added the "in exchange for so little" to the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_was_ ... _to_so_few

[vanwinkle]

Saying that something "must exist", just because it would be harsh otherwise, is remarkably naive.

Did you read the ATL article? Options exist...

Oh oops. All the loans in that ATL article are PRIVATE loans, who will end up taking a reduced rate after they ream your credit rating. Federal ones=non negotiable

Boom.

[Verity]

Never before in our history have so many been in debt to so few, in exchange for so little.

Most aphoristic line on TLS.

Meh- I kind of wish he had just directly quoted Churchill, and maybe added the "in exchange for so little" to the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_was_ ... _to_so_few

Lol, that's ironic. The people "owed" to in Churchill's speech were meant to be praised. The speech was also made to incite hope. Not the case here.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Never before in our history have so many been in debt to so few, in exchange for so little.

Most aphoristic line on TLS.

I'm going to add it to what little there is of my TLS profile.