Against the law, and wanting into it.

July 16, 2010 4:22 PM

Getting into law school and passing the bar in California with two instances of questionable moral turpitude.

I have great grades, an advanced degree, and am confident of a good score on the LSAT. However - and I make no excuses for this, it was extremely foolish - I got a DUI last year.

Normally, I would bite the bullet - mention it in my personal statement when applying and hope that my advanced degree, sincerity of rehabilitation, and good grades/ scores would help me.

The problem is, I have a prior that happened in a different state 7 years ago. Although it sounds like I'm being defensive, this one was hardly warranted, and I didn't have the best lawyer at the time. Water under the bridge.

For my most recent one, I paid a fine, had 96 hours of jail time, and several hours of community service. It was a misdemeanor, and obviously compounded by my previous one. My alcohol level was >0.17. I know there are people that will judge me here as I deserve to be. I made a lot of people I love very unhappy, and trust me when I say I've lost countless nights of sleep over it.

The issue is that, beyond feeling extremely worthless and facing a bleak future, I am wondering whether it is even worth it to put hours of studying into the LSAT, try to apply to law school, and then pass the California bar's moral evaluation. (I am given to understand law schools have a moral eval as well, to see if you're worth accepting). I've been told that I should try to explain my indiscretions within my personal statement, but explaining two of them seems somehow futile.

I'd like some input as to personal experiences, or actual advice as to what to do, or if I should just give up the idea altogether. I am thinking to apply to get in to law school Fall 2012 - will time act as a positive buffer?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Throwaway email: [e-mail]

posted by anonymous to Law & Government (22 answers total)

I would ask these questions of a lawyer admitted to the California bar, who is familiar with issues of moral turpitude. My suspicion is that lawyers have been admitted who have more grievous offenses under their belt.
posted by dfriedman at 4:26 PM on July 16, 2010

I think you should call some admissions people at law schools you might be interested in ask. Also, as I'm sure you know, the market for lawyers is BAD right now, and that might not be changing soon. More than worrying about law school or the bar, I would be worried about finding a job, and how the record might make that even tougher in a tough time .
posted by dpx.mfx at 4:27 PM on July 16, 2010

Anecdata:

A friend of a friend is an attorney in a midwestern state. He wished to move back to his home state, a big one in the southwest. He had SEVEN DUIs, including one that resulted in him actually spending some time in jail. Before moving back to his home state, he applied to waive into that state's bar and had to go through the character and fitness evaluation. He owned up to his DUIs, to the jail time, and to his drinking problem, as did each and every one of his references (many of whom were also attorneys). And yet he was able to pass character and fitness in that other state.

I am not saying that that will be the case in every state or for every person. But know that DUIs are not (1) uncommon or (2) the worst thing the character and fitness people have seen. It is far more important to be HONEST about having the DUIs, quite frankly.

That being said, it's worth it to perhaps call the Cal Bar examiners' office (not sure exactly what the body is that does bar examining in California, but a quick Google search should bring it up). They have people whose sole job is to answer questions about this sort of thing.
posted by devinemissk at 4:45 PM on July 16, 2010

nthing the bad market for lawyers. I heard the market was already bad for many law school graduates before the recession, and since then law firms have been laying people off and cutting costs all over the place, so it's even worse now. Even graduates of top schools are having trouble.

I can't give you any specific advice about the moral evaluation, but I would be super diligent about checking to see if you pass muster with the school admissions people and with the bar before enrolling. If it's the case that the bar won't have you, there still may be schools that will, and then you'll be stuck with huge amounts of non-dischargable debt and no way to become a lawyer.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 4:54 PM on July 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

The only person Illinois has rejected for lack of moral character in AGES (like, seriously since the McCarthy era) is Matt Hale, leader of the World Church of the Creator, a white supremacist movement that espouses violence, who is now in federal prison for soliciting an FBI agent to kill a federal judge.

On the flip side, Virginia called my husband over a handful of speeding tickets, saying they showed a lack of respect for the law. But they only wanted his reassurance he wouldn't do it again. Very often.

So it can vary a lot. On the one hand, a "youthful indiscretion" that you feel genuine remorse for is unlikely to be a permanent bar to practicing law. On the other hand, having two of them sort-of makes that a more difficult claim to make. I would definitely talk to some lawyers and some law schools and even call the state bar admissions people and find out how they handle those things.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:58 PM on July 16, 2010

When it comes to C&F, the most important thing is candor. Candor is being utterly, completely blunt and honest about the things you did. Candor is considered to be one of the signs that you have overcome whatever it was that you did. Another is taking full responsibility and not making any excuses. Another is making contributions to the community.

The worst things you can do, as far as being admitted to law school/the bar, are things that have to do with dishonesty. Cheating in school, being a con artist, engaging in any kind of fraud. That is a lot worse in their eyes than a DUI.

If you talk about your DUI in your personal statement, I would not spend a lot of time "explaining" them if I were you. Own up to them. Be very blunt. Take total responsibility. Talk about what you have done since then to make up for it to the community and try to put things right.
posted by Ashley801 at 5:35 PM on July 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh, and as far as time acting as a buffer --- I don't know how much time itself will help, but if you can get in a lot of voluntary extra community service in that time, that is somehow related to your DUI (or not even related, necessarily), that will definitely help.
posted by Ashley801 at 5:39 PM on July 16, 2010

Seconding cosmic.osmo and devinemissk. It's ultimately your state bar that will admit you to the practice of law, so I'd check with them first before making any plans.

If you get a nod from the bar and decide to apply to law school, you absolutely need to be up front about your convictions no matter how futile it seems. The way you explained your first DUI to us would not go over well with an adcom - any language that could be construed as minimizing the offense ("hardly warranted") or casting blame on others ("I didn't have the best lawyer") will be frowned upon.

Like Ashley801 said, your DUIs won't arouse suspicions of dishonesty, but being slippery about them will. Just state matter-of-factly that you were charged and convicted, and then focus on what you've learned from the experience and the steps you took to take care of the issues that led you to drink and drive in the first place. Have you had any counselling? Completed any educational programs? Participated in AA? Alcohol abuse is a pretty major problem in the profession. Show that you are willing and able to deal with it.

Yes, time is a mitigating factor.
posted by keep it under cover at 5:50 PM on July 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

P.S. If you do write about them in an addendum to your application, do NOT say anything like this: Although it sounds like I'm being defensive, this one was hardly warranted, and I didn't have the best lawyer at the time. Water under the bridge.

Minimizing. Not taking responsibility. Lack of candor. I know you are not meaning to do that, that to you this is the truth, but that is how it comes off.

You really should say something as blunt as this, even if you think it make you sound really bad:

"On July 24, 2003, I drove while intoxicated. My blood alcohol level was X. My actions were wrong and I take full responsibility for them and for my DUI conviction. I did A, B, and C to attempt to make amends and rehabilitate myself.

On July 24, 2009, I drove again while intoxicated. My blood alcohol level was X. My actions were wrong and appalling and again, I take full responsibility for my DUI conviction. I realized that A, B, and C that I did in 2007 were not sufficient. Since then, I have done X, Y, and Z."

The more substantial X, Y and Z are, the better.
posted by Ashley801 at 5:51 PM on July 16, 2010 [10 favorites]

Oh, and if you didn't do anything to try to make up for it after the first DUI, I think you should say so. If I were you I would candidly say that at the time, I wrongheadedly believed that what I did was not very serious.
posted by Ashley801 at 6:04 PM on July 16, 2010

Getting accepted to law school probably won't be the big issue; it will be more about getting accepted to the bar. For that I highly recommend that you speak to an attorney who specializes in ethics and ask him/her about your chances. These attorneys often represent other attorneys in ethics issues before the bar.
posted by amro at 6:05 PM on July 16, 2010

I have a friend who was charged with and convicted of a felony and who spent some time in a federal prison who is now in law school in California. He was completely honest and upfront about it when applying to law schools. And he got in.
posted by gingerbeer at 6:09 PM on July 16, 2010

Also, you should absolutely follow the advice of the people telling you to be honest. Do not, however, believe the people who will tell you, "As long as you're honest about it, that's all they care about." Not true.
posted by amro at 6:25 PM on July 16, 2010

By the way, this shouldn't be your personal statement. That's for explaining why you want to go to law school or how you became the person you are today or something that will make a school want to admit you. Explanations for weaknesses in your application belong in addenda, separate from your personal statement. Most schools will specifically ask you to write an addendum if you answer affirmatively to any of the questions about criminal records and such. But even if they don't, write an addendum about this. Don't pollute your personal statement with it.
posted by decathecting at 6:28 PM on July 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

Ask this question in the admission subforum of Top Law Schools (TLS) . There are people there that have dealt with this sort of thing, and lots of other people that generally spend lots of time discussing and debating LS admissions.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:39 PM on July 16, 2010

That is, when it comes to dealing with writing a personal statement. The more general advice would be (I'd expect) very much the same as the above. But with lots of flaming.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:43 PM on July 16, 2010

A reminder that getting into a law school has nothing to do with whether any state's bar will later admit you (as to C&F -- I guess not getting into a law school would indeed affect your changes for admission).

States' C&F strictness varies. As mentioned above, you should be scrupulously honest and apologetic (don't sound like you're being defensive) to have the best chances. I suspect, without any actual knowledge about CA, that things will be OK if you do that.
posted by deeaytch at 5:53 AM on July 17, 2010

Forget passing the character and fitness evaluation. The only prize that matters after law school and the bar exam is GETTING A JOB. That's what I'd be worried about.

If I found out an applicant to my firm had been convicted of two DUIs within seven years, I'd assume he is an alcoholic. Before hiring an alcoholic, I'd want to know how many days, months, and years he's been sober. That's the only way he could prove his "sincerity of rehabilitation" to me.

Most of the comments in this thread indicate that the standard for passing the character and fitness exam is pretty low. It probably is. But every other "should I go to law school" thread in the past 2-3 years indicates that the standard for actually getting a job to pay off your law school loans is higher than it's every been.

Maybe I'm being too hard on people with two DUIs or on job applicants with alcohol issues. I'm just one teetotaling stranger on the internet. But if I were Anonymous, I'd add these questions to my list for law school admissions and career services offices before paying a dollar in law school tuition:
-Is a firm likely to ask or find out about about my driving history and/or misdemeanor record? (in my experience, they ask)
-Is a firm likely to perceive someone with two DUIs to have a drinking problem?
-Is a firm likely to hire someone with two DUIs and/or a perceived drinking problem?
-How could I convince a firm that I've overcome my drinking problem?
posted by hhc5 at 8:55 PM on July 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

Regarding your disclosure of your DUIs to prospective school, the general rule of thumb is to step through the "three Rs," those being "recognition, remorse and rehabilitation." Be honest. If you haven't rehabilitated, or done anything to show rehabilitation, then don't say you have (though if you haven't, you're going to have a difficult time getting past an admissions committee, let alone the bar examiners). I can't stress honesty enough. Don't attempt to minimize or excuse your conduct. It's not excusable. It's not minimal. The charges were not "hardly warranted." Like it or not, you risked actually ending other people's lives. Get that through your head first, and proceed from there.

Second, if it were me, I wouldn't include this in my Personal Statement. That is a statement of who you are, and how you arrived at the point of wanting to begin a career as a lawyer. Now, if your DUIs are who you are, or defined your desire to become a lawyer, then by all means.... Otherwise, I would include a thoughtful, candid disclosure not in your Personal Statement, but in an Addendum to your application to each school.

This isn't legal advice, nor is it the advice of anyone with expertise in these matters, though. Seeking such advice is undoubtedly a good idea.
posted by yurodivy at 10:49 PM on July 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

The comments about the PS vs. addendum are quite correct--I was referring to them more generally (schematically, the addendum extends the personal statement component of the application.) I was out of school for a few years before finishing undergrad, and my discussion of how that came to be went into an addendum.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:25 AM on July 18, 2010

Just to give you a bit more of a sense of the policies of at least one state bar (in this case California) --

In making its determination whether an applicant presently possesses the good moral character necessary for admission to practice law in California, the Committee considers evidence of candor and honesty, respect for the law and the rights of others, fiscal responsibility, and records of fidelity and trustworthiness in other professions for which he or she is licensed.

...

It is the policy of The State Bar of California that persons who have been convicted of violent felonies, felonies involving moral turpitude and crimes involving a breach of fiduciary duty are presumed not to be of good moral character in the absence of a pardon or a showing of overwhelming reform and rehabilitation. The Committee shall exercise its discretion to determine whether applicants convicted of violent felonies, felonies involving moral turpitude and crimes involving a breach of fiduciary duty have produced overwhelming proof of reform and rehabilitation, including at a minimum, a lengthy period of not only unblemished, but exemplary conduct.

For example, in determining whether past criminal activity is presently disqualifying, the Committee will consider the nature of the activity; whether there were aggravating or mitigating circumstances; whether restitution has been made, if appropriate; the age and education of the applicant at the time of the activity; the age and education of the applicant at the present time; whether all terms of the sentence, including parole/probation, have been served; the informed opinions of others as to the applicant's present moral character; and the nature and extent of the voluntary rehabilitative activities, including career, civic, and family activities in which the applicant has been involved since the criminal activity in question.

For more a detailed list of rehabilitative factors, applicants may request the Committee's policy statement entitled Factors That May Be Taken into Consideration When Evaluating the Rehabilitation of an Applicant Seeking a Moral Character Determination.



posted by Ashley801 at 5:33 AM on July 18, 2010

Ah, I had missed that you actually want to practice in CA specifically. In that case, the site will be helpful to you. They specifically address substance abuse-related offenses further down after the section I posted, and also specifically address them on the "Factors that may be taken into consideration" page. Also, elsewhere on the site, which I saw in passing but can't seem to find now, they have a list of lawyers who handle bar-admission problems.
posted by Ashley801 at 5:43 AM on July 18, 2010