Lois Loan

A stipulated public reprimand has been imposed by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for misconduct in the repayment of a student loan co-borrower

On April 1, 2009, the respondent executed as borrower a Sallie Mae Bar Study Loan in the original amount of $15,000.00. In order to qualify for the loan, the respondent was required to have a credit worthy co-borrower. The respondent’s then girlfriend agreed to and did sign the loan as co-borrower.

Between June 2010 and July 2011, forbearance requests from the respondent were allowed from time to time, but no payments were made when the forbearances expired. The co-borrower received repeated dunning letters and phone calls from Sallie Mae indicating that no payments had been made during the times that no forbearance was in place. On June 6, 2011, the co-borrower received notification that Sallie Mae had reported negatively to national consumer credit reporting agencies on various dates.

After repeated demands on the respondent to pay the loan or the delinquent amounts, in July 2011, the co-borrower retained counsel. On July 15, 2011, counsel sent a letter of representation to the respondent advising him that his failure to pay the debt was detrimentally affecting the co-borrower’s credit. As of July 2011, the debt had ballooned to about $20,000.00. The respondent continued to fail to make any payments.

On February 17, 2012, the co-borrower borrowed funds and paid the full amount of the debt in the amount of $21,500, more or less, and then continued to make demands from the respondent for reimbursement, without success.

On March 12, 2012, the co-borrower filed a civil complaint. The respondent did not answer and a default entered on April 17, 2012.

He moved to set aside the default and entered into a payment plan when the motion was denied.

He moved to Maryland, making collection difficult

On April 28, 2017, the co-borrower’s attorney returned the unenforceable capias to the court, withdrew from representing the co-borrower and directed her to counsel in Maryland to pursue a full faith and credit proceeding, if she so elected. In connection with his application to be admitted to practice in Maryland, the respondent agreed to a payment plan, with deductions from his pay, that is now being complied with.

The misconduct

The respondent’s failure to appear at the supplementary process hearing of April 5, 2013 as ordered, his failure to comply with the Order of the Court dated January 15, 2014, his failure to appear at the review hearing on July 11, 2014 resulting in a finding of contempt and a capias, and his failure to appear at a subsequent supplementary process hearing on October 22, 2015 also resulting in a capias, as described above, are in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) and (h).

There were no factors on aggravation. In mitigation, the respondent’s misconduct did not occur within the practice of law.

(Mike Frisch)