• She owes $340,000 after undergrad, graduate, and law school debt. That's a lot but not surprising. The rest is her husband's debt. Calling her morally unfit to be a lawyer because she is married seems odd. 
• No doubt she is litigious, although it's not surprising that there was some litigation when she's managing a contentious estate. But being litigious is not an ethical failing - or we'd have a lot fewer lawyers in business!
• Her minimum-wage lawsuit was apparently meritorious (it settled to her advantage), and maybe THIS is the reason to Bar doesn't want her: she sued a lawyer that she was working for, demanding minimum wage. I don't know what their original agreement might have been, but he is the one who should be under investigation - both for violating wage laws and for being a schmuck. 
• According to the report, some of the cases she filed were thrown out for not have the paperwork right. Well, isn't that the point of law school - teaching you how to "think like a lawyer"? 
• There is no reason to pay any attention to the failed motion to get her labeled a vexatious litigant. There's nothing in the report that suggests the motion worked, so why is it in the report? Anybody can accuse their opponent of being vexatious - and maybe she is - but considering a failed motion as evidence for the truth of its claim is simply wrong. 
• That law school that took her money needs to back her up, or it's admitting it did a bad job.

"A 59-Year-Old Law School Graduate Is Not Allowed To Become A Lawyer While She And Her Husband Owe $900,000 In Student Loans". By Steven Chung, AboveTheLaw, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:59 AM