Minnesota Lawyer
Print, Digital & Mobile
Monthly auto-renew
$32
----------
1 Year
$349
----------
2 Years
$499
----------
Digital & Mobile Only
1 Year
$269
Monthly auto-renew
$32
----------
1 Year
$349
----------
2 Years
$499
----------
Digital & Mobile Only
1 Year
$269
Enter your user name and password in the fields above to gain access to the subscriber content on this site.
Your subscription includes one set of login credentials for your exclusive use. Security features have been integrated on this site: If someone signs in with your credentials while you are logged in, the site will automatically close your ongoing login and you will lose access at that time. To inquire about group subscriptions for your organization, contact Shaun Witt.
If you feel your login credentials are being used by a second party, contact customer service at 877-615-9536 for assistance in changing your password.Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here.
I’m trying to figure out 1) why they didn’t deny half of their new admitees if employment + law school debt is a problem for character and fitness, and 2) why they think it’s less responsible to stick with a real job prospect, even if it’s part-time for a while, instead of joining the masses applying for every other job. It is a weird circular outcome for the guy. Although I’ve decided that in professional responsibility cases that seem to have a weird outcome that the lawyer also failed to cooperate, etc., so I’m wondering if there’s more here than what’s in the case.
Is it possible that this ruling could end up having a racially disparate impact if white students are more likely to graduate with less debt? Could it also be seen as a form of class warfare? I hope that Ohio’s Supreme Court Justices and bar examiners are pilloried for this outrage.