An Interview With Kevin Rosenberg Where He Explains How He Successfully Discharged His Student Loans In Bankruptcy Court

Last week, the Wall Street Journal featured the story of Kevin Rosenberg (also covered here), a former attorney who did what every student loan debt slave thought was almost impossible — he convinced the bankruptcy court to discharge his student loans in full.

What’s amazing about Rosenberg’s story is that he did this on his own without the assistance of an attorney. I reached out to him, and he was kind enough to grant an interview where he explains what led to his decision to file bankruptcy and how he handled the adversary process on his own.

Please tell me about yourself and what you did after graduation.

While I was serving in the naval officer’s program, I was told that those who were leaving were expected to go to graduate school. Based on my interests and background, I thought that going to law school and being a lawyer would be the right fit for me. As an officer, I was used to preparing and processing paperwork. I also wanted to help people and make good money.

It turns out that after my first year of law school, I found out that as a lawyer, I will either help people or make good money. I also realized that I was not going to enjoy doing legal work so I considered doing something else. I applied for jobs in the business sector, but I was mostly ignored. And the few employers who contacted me said that they were surprised that I did not want to be a lawyer since they thought lawyers made large salaries. It was then I realized that my law school (and others) were not truthful about nonlegal employment opportunities for those with law degrees.

So after graduation, I pursued a number of business ventures. I was a street vendor in Brooklyn, was a real estate broker, and ran an outdoor-gear rental business.

In 2016, with the help of angel investors, I opened a retail shop. Initially, the business was profitable. But business slowed as more people were turning online to shop instead of going to brick-and-mortar stores. Due to continuing losses, I had to shut down the business in 2017.

To make things worse that year, I underwent back surgery and was in rehab for one year. During that time, I could not move or lift heavy objects. As a result I was unable to devote myself to my business, which was a contributing factor to the closure.

Sounds like you had ups and downs over the years. How did you handle your student loan payments during those times?

I was unable to pay the monthly payments under the standard monthly plan so I contacted the lenders to try to work out a payment plan that I can afford based on the circumstances. The various student loan servicers who handled my account pushed me to be on forbearance which meant I didn’t have to pay temporarily but the interest grew in the meantime. Later, they switched me to an income-based repayment plan.

The private lenders set up a payment plan where I started with a low amount per month which increased after every year. However, there were times I was unable to pay because I did not have the money and so I defaulted. The lenders then sued and got a judgment against me which later showed up on my credit report.

Basically, I paid what I could based on how much I made at the time. At one time, I was making good money and used a large portion of it to try to pay down the loans. But most of the time, I could only pay what I can afford after basic living expenses.

What made you consider bankruptcy?

Based on everything that has happened and thinking about the future, I concluded that there was no realistic way I could pay off my student loans in full. Also, since the judgment from the private loan lenders affected my credit, it would be near impossible to obtain a loan from a bank. This made it impossible to expand my business or refinance my existing loans.

What was your total student loan debt at the time of your bankruptcy?

In total about $400,000. $220,000 were federal loans and $180,000 were private loans.

Were you aware that the law makes it more difficult to discharge student loans compared to other debts?

I read that it was not easy to show undue hardship in order to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. Not only that, you have to start an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court which is similar to filing a lawsuit. This made my case more complicated than a typical bankruptcy filing.

Did you try to retain a bankruptcy attorney to represent you?

Yes, but the attorneys I talked to said that costs would be between $25,000 to $40,000, and I could not afford that.

Did the loan companies offer to settle?

I was able to settle my private student debts in full. However, Navient, the loan servicer for my federal loans, was not willing to budge. They would only suggest that I enter into an income-based repayment plan.

What made you decide to go to the bankruptcy court on your own?

I researched the Brunner test which sets out the elements that needs to be met to show undue hardship which will discharge the student loans in full. After researching, including reading the case law, I believed that I met the standard. Finally, I had nothing to lose at this point.

So tell me about the filing the petition and starting the adversary process.

I filed the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on March of 2018 and then started the adversary proceeding in June 2018. I was required to undergo the credit counseling seminar and then my case was assigned to a bankruptcy trustee.

I started the adversary proceeding by filing a complaint with the court using templates I found online. ECMC filed an answer and then discovery proceedings began.

Note: Some bankruptcy court websites have templates for filing an adversary complaint. For example, this is a template that can be used in the Middle District of Florida.

So what happened during the discovery process?

For nonlawyers, discovery is the process where each party gathers information from the other. I asked ECMC to provide me with copies of my entire payment history, all internal communications concerning my file, and copies of loan documents.

ECMC asked for copies of my tax returns, my financial information, and my employment history. I provided copies of all of them.

They also deposed me and I spoke with one of their employment experts.

The employment expert concluded that I could have taken a paralegal job, with some being paid over $100,000 per year. The problem was that those high-paying paralegal jobs required many years of experience and was in specialized fields such as mergers and acquisitions. There was no way I could have qualified for those jobs.

Has ECMC (or anyone else) done anything to make the adversary process difficult for you?  ECMC never turned over the documents/info I requested even after the judge ordered them to do so. They kept saying that those documents were from a prior party in interest, and I argued that if they now own the loan they need to be able to produce the documents. They gave me a data dump of around 150 pages that was basically in their company code and was practically undecipherable. From the beginning I tried to settle for an amount that I knew I could pay off in 10 years and they refused to budge.

So what led to the judge’s decision?

Over a year later, and a few months before the judge’s decision, she cancelled discovery. Both ECMC and I filed our summary judgment motions as there were no factual disputes. So I wrote the summary judgment motion arguing why I met the Brunner test: I cannot maintain a minimal standard of living based on current income and expenses, why my current financial condition is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period, and that I made good faith efforts to repay.

So you must be happy with the judge’s decision?

I would say I feel more relieved than happy.

Are you ready in case ECMC appeals the decision?

I have not heard from ECMC about whether they will appeal. But since the decision was made public, I have been offered free representation by attorneys and advocacy groups in case they do. My research shows that the chances of reversal on appeal are very low, and I’m sure ECMC is aware that an affirmance from an appeals court will set future precedent.

In your opinion, do you think that most people can handle the adversary process on their own without an attorney? Yes, thanks to templates available online. It basically comes down to telling and proving your story and why you meet the requirements of the Brunner test. My pleadings are public but to make it easier for debtors representing themselves I’m happy to send them to a debtor’s advocacy group helping people like myself. That being said, I don’t consider myself a lawyer and my pleadings are far from perfect. I focused on telling my story in plain language and used case law that I found via Google, not Westlaw or Lexis, which I didn’t have access to. I’m sure my citation format was not up to law firm standards but it got the point across.

Student loan forgiveness is a sensitive and divisive topic. Is there anything you would like to say to those who think you should pay your debt in full?

I believe the judge made the fair and right decision based on my life struggles. I lived minimally. I rarely ate out, never traveled except for work and was living paycheck to paycheck. I was constantly behind on rent. I’m 46 and because of these loans, I am unlikely to have a long-term relationship. I am not asking for a handout, but instead a second chance. I don’t see why student loans have to be treated so harshly compared to other debts.

I chose bankruptcy because I had no other choice. I tried to work with the lenders but they gave me no other options. I am hoping that this ruling will force them to work with debtors instead of intimidating them.

I want to thank Kevin Rosenberg for sharing his story and I wish him well.


Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Litigation Associate Opportunity in Boston

A leading litigation-focused law firm is seeking a mid-level associate for the firm’s Boston, MA, office.

This is the perfect opportunity for a litigation associate with two (2) to five (5) years of experience with the litigation practice of a large firm to gain hands-on substantive experience in both domestic and cross-border disputes. The firm is known around the world for representing high profile clients in “bet the company” disputes.

If you currently feel “lost” within a large group of junior litigation associates all working on small pieces of large litigation matters and wish to gain more substantive experience, this may be the place for you. A high level of academic achievement from a leading US law school and admission to the Massachusetts bar is required.

To learn more, submit your resume or send a note to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

Oh Look, They Arrested Michael Avenatti

Michael Avenatti (Photo by Jennifer S. Altman/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Getting arrested right outside of your own disciplinary hearing is the definition of exiting the frying pan into the fire.

Yesterday, 2018 Lawyer of the Year Michael Avenatti appeared before the state bar to discuss the charge that he pilfered $840K from a client’s settlement funds for personal use. Little did he know when he headed out that he wouldn’t be returning home.

During a break, federal prosecutors had a quick chat with the Avenatti team and arrested him for violating the terms of his release. The Daily Beast reports that an Avenatti attorney said that the arrest stemmed from an unrelated criminal matter in Santa Ana but declined to provide details. Quoting a separate Avenatti lawyer, Fox News reports that Avenatti will have a bail hearing at 2 pm Pacific today.

Avenatti, who appeared on Above the Law’s podcast last year, has had a wild couple of years from storming to prominence representing a porn star clashing with Trump to flirting with a White House run himself to facing multiple federal criminal charges to this — and that’s not even counting some of the stuff along the way.

We’ll learn more this afternoon.

Michael Avenatti Arrested by Feds at California State Bar Hearing [Daily Beast]
Avenatti arrested by IRS agents during California Bar Association hearing [Fox News]

Earlier: Michael Avenatti Charged With… A Whole Bunch Of Stuff Out Of Multiple USAOs
Michael Avenatti Charged With… A Whole Bunch MORE Stuff
Above The Law’s 2018 Lawyer Of The Year Contest: The Winner!
The ATL Michael Avenatti Interview


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Morning Docket: 01.15.20

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

* President Trump is assembling a legal “Dream Team” to defend him in his impeachment trial. [NPR]

* A California lawyer has trademarked a moniker used by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Quite the entrepreneur. [Fox Business]

* Jay-Z’s lawyer has filed a lawsuit in support of Mississippi prisoners. Since Jay-Z taught us all about the Fourth Amendment in 99 Problems, this is not surprising. [NBC]

* The New York Attorney General is investigating whether the MTA is targeting people of color for NYC subway fare evasion summonses. [Politico]

* The “Bridgegate” matter has finally made its way to the Supreme Court, and the justices seem skeptical of the government’s case. [Fox News]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Sometimes Biglaw Should Be More Passive-Aggressive — See Also

Associate Wishes Biglaw Was A Thankless Job: Or at least one punctuated with some periods of finality.

Alcohol Police To The Rescue: Linklaters has sober chaperones for their drinking parties.

What’s So Bad About Clickbait?: Larry Lessig sues the Times.

Game Of Thrones May Be Gone: But its terrible legal takes continue.

More On Kirkland’s Non-Equity Situation: We talk about it in podcast form if you want your ATL content faster and while you commute.

A Judge And A Hero

What fictional judge made their debut in comics in 1977 and has appeared in multiple media formats including movies, novels and video games?

Hint: The character got their start in comic books, and in 2011, IGN ranked them 35th among the top 100 comic book heroes of all time.

See the answer on the next page.

Non-Equity Means Non-Partner

More and more firms are adopting a non-equity partner tier, delaying equity consideration while extracting maximum value from high billing but relatively lowly paid senior attorneys tied to the job by the dangling hope of a future promotion that may never arrive.

Hospitals sue CMS again over site-neutral payments – MedCity News

Hospitals once again sued the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services over its site-neutral payment policy. The final rule reduced Medicare reimbursement rates for procedures conducted in hospital outpatient departments, bringing them closer to what CMS currently pays for procedures conducted in-office and at ambulatory surgical centers. The policy is expected to save Medicare an estimated $800 million in 2020.

The American Hospital Association and Association of American Medical Colleges filed suit against CMS on Monday, saying CMS’ adjustments were unlawful and flouted a judge’s previous ruling against the cuts. The two groups had previously sued over site-neutral payments in 2019.

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that CMS had overstepped its statutory authority, noting changes to payments must be budget-neutral and could not target specific services. Because of that ruling, CMS will have to repay hospitals the difference for 2019, to the tune of roughly $380 million. However, Collyer’s ruling does not apply to the planned reductions in 2020.

“The 2020 Final Rule is no less an impermissible flex of regulatory authority than the 2019 Final Rule, and should meet the same fate,” AHA and AAMC stated in the complaint.

They added that if the rule is left in place, hospitals “…may have to make difficult decisions about whether to reduce services in response to the lowered payment rate. This is particularly troubling for hospitals already operating at low or negative margins.”

While hospitals have voiced opposition to the changes, some medical groups support them. The American Medical Association previously released statements in support of site-neutral payments, but with the stipulation that they should not result in a total reduction in Medicare payments.

“Medicare physician payment has not kept pace with the actual costs of running a practice,” the AMA wrote in a 2019 issue brief, seeking a reevaluation of payments for in-office procedures.

The Department of Health and Human Services is appealing the 2019 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Photo credit: zimmytws, Getty Images 

Biglaw Senior Associate Isn’t Happy About How You Sign Your Emails

Someone whose online handle is “hlsperson1111” is almost certainly insufferable unless in some freak coincidence they’re a Hofstra grad. But since we all know this is really the kind of person who went to Harvard Law and now — years into practice — still feels this fact is central enough to his or her properly gender-neutral identity to employ it online we’ll take judicial notice of their insufferabilitude.

But the first step to overcoming any obstacle is admitting you have a problem, and our friend hlsperson1111 seems to be grasping toward self-awareness over at the Top Law Schools board:

I’m a senior associate at a big firm. Over the years, I have developed an abiding hatred of people using “Thanks” without a period in emails. I think it’s sloppy and sends a message that the sender doesn’t care enough about your time to include a period. I see it often from partners and other associates around my seniority, and I suffer in silence because it’s not really appropriate for me to pick a fight with them about it. But I now am at the point where I am supervising associates who use “Thanks” without a period, and it drives me up the fucking wall. Is it too petty for me to tell them to cut it out and that it’s a bad look?

Thankfully moderator QContinuum (a handle that marks a very different kind of insufferable) offered the final word on the matter:

Yes, it would be petty. Thanks

And while that was a perfect way to end, if there are any of you out there who sympathize with hlsperson1111, you should know that your frustration should be with your own inability to understand the vagaries of human language. In a recent episode of the podcast Lexicon Valley (which is a fantastic program), Columbia University linguist John McWhorter discussed a phenomenon of human language known as “softeners.” These are the little wrinkles in communication that people often subconsciously throw in to indicate to the listener that they shouldn’t misread a potentially harsh sentence. It’s the “could you open the door?” when you mean to communicate the directive “open the door.” These aren’t set in stone, but evolve as human communication evolves.

Written electronic communication has brought a whole new set of softeners from emoji to aggressive overuse of the exclamation point! And one other recent marker he mentions in passing is the technique of omitting a period to avoid giving the message a sense of brusque finality. And by recent, it’s worth mentioning that we’ve been talking about this softener for at least nine years now.

Ending a message with “Thanks.” today would be understood by many if not most online literate readers as a “don’t even try to respond to this until it’s handled you plebeian.” It’s just how communication is evolving… leave the period off if you don’t want people to think you’re a dick.

Thanks.


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Man Seeks ‘Trial By Combat’ Against Ex-Wife

This isn’t the first trial by combat motion we’ve seen in the last few years, but it’s definitely the first we’ve seen where the man wants a sword fight with his wife.

David Ostrom of Kansas asked an Iowa judge to allow him to take a sword to his ex-wife and her attorney “so that he can ‘rend their souls’ from their bodies.

The judge withheld judgment for the time being.

Ostrom claims in his filing that he needs this remedy because his former spouse and her lawyer have destroyed him legally. Not to get technical, but it sounds like this trial by combat motion is not timely because if he’s been “destroyed legally” they already had the trial and he lost.

Now if he moved for a new trial first…

Man asks Iowa judge for ‘trial by combat’ with ex-wife, lawyer [KCCI]


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.