Comments on: Robert Bowman: Aspiring Lawyer, Ethics Martyr http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/11/27/robert-bowman-aspiring-lawyer-ethics-martyr/ An ethics commentary blog on current events and issues Sun, 27 May 2012 01:38:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jack Marshall http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/11/27/robert-bowman-aspiring-lawyer-ethics-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-282 Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:57:01 +0000 http://ethicsalarms.com/?p=383#comment-282 The ethics committees would challenge your analogy with physicians, because 1) they don’t handle patient’s money and 2) honesty is not really a measurement of what makes a good physician (see: “House” That character would be disbarred every week.). Medical ethics and legal ethics are in different universes.

I think the decision was made to cement a larger principle (don’t take on more debt than you can pay back) even though the principle was unfairly applied in this case. But these decisions are supposed to be made according to the individual facts.

I doubt that any sinister motives are at play. It’s just a terrible decision, like judges make every day.

]]> By: Michael http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/11/27/robert-bowman-aspiring-lawyer-ethics-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-281 Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:50:23 +0000 http://ethicsalarms.com/?p=383#comment-281 If ninety percent of the people who accumulate $500,000 in student debt are untrustworthy, then that probably means that 90% of the physicians in this country are untrustworthy. That is not far from what they accumulate in med school and if they have substantial student loans from their undergraduate education, it can easily push it that high. Remember, there are many schools that cost over $120,000 for four years and the average time-to-graduation for a large chunk of those is ~6 years (make that a $180,000 B.A.).

I have to wonder what the motivation of the judges were in this case. They had Mr. Bowman’s explanation and that was backed up severalfold by their own investigative committee. Why don’t people follow the suggestion of their own investigation? Because the investigation wasn’t supposed to find the truth, it was supposed to support the ruling that had already been rendered.

The puzzling thing here is, why? Are they trying to reduce the number of new lawyers by keeping out the poor kids. If this becomes a common standard (high student loan debt) it will become difficult for children who don’t have well-off parents to become lawyers. That is fine for the current lawyers (their children can become lawyers), and it keeps the rabble out. This may not be the explanation, but is the best idea I can come up with.

]]>