Just got second DUI, what to do next? Forum

[ResolutePear]

apply for shift manager at McDonald's

Find a franchise KFC that'll take you instead. They pay more and don't worry about petty things like DUI's, the herp, and coming to work without pants.

[northwood]

apply for shift manager at McDonald's

Find a franchise KFC that'll take you instead. They pay more and don't worry about petty things like DUI's, the herp, and coming to work without pants.

so thats what they mean by stuffed chicken?

[ResolutePear]

apply for shift manager at McDonald's

Find a franchise KFC that'll take you instead. They pay more and don't worry about petty things like DUI's, the herp, and coming to work without pants.

so thats what they mean by stuffed chicken?

If only you knew.

[gbpackerbacker]

Question: What does one have to do not to pass the c & f section of the bar? Honestly, I only have read of once person not passing because of debt or something.

Edit:

Oh, and OP is an idiot.

TITCR

[nshapkar]

Here's a thought. Even if you get into LS, you still have to pass the bar in 3 years.

Here's a thought: the bar for failing c and f is ridiculously high.

you're saying it's hard to not pass c&f?

That is exactly what I'm saying. The myth about difficulties in re: passing c and f is one of the most annoying, most persistent myths on this site.

How do you know this? Just curious, because despite hearing one state say my tiny record won't be a problem I'm still really nervous about the whole thing.

[flcath]

That is exactly what I'm saying. The myth about difficulties in re: passing c and f is one of the most annoying, most persistent myths on this site.

How do you know this? Just curious, because despite hearing one state say my tiny record won't be a problem I'm still really nervous about the whole thing.

Obviously the "entry level" cases are private, as are the first-level appeals (typically still within the bar assoc.), but--as in all things--you can see the cases that make their way to the state supreme court of the jurisdiction in which you want to practice (provided they publish an opinion, which they will for precedent-setting stuff).

In GA, for instance, the leading cases include such holdings as "a criminal conviction need not be serious to provide evidence of lack of character for the practice of law. Repeated convictions for minor offenses can also prevent C&F passage. In this case, a man with 7 misdemeanor convictions was deemed to not possess adequate character..." (this is my recollection of an actual case; NOT a stringent standard.)

Avoid, obviously, things like fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, etc.

What is surprising is how intransigent they can be with the "F" portion of C&F: perfectly innocent people with legitimate illnesses (granted, serious illnesses) are refused bar admission fairly regularly.

I honestly think that 2 DUIs would be more likely to get you dinged from C&F for being a drunk than for being a criminal.

[lisjjen]

What is surprising is how intransigent they can be with the "F" portion of C&F: perfectly innocent people with legitimate illnesses (granted, serious illnesses) are refused bar admission fairly regularly.

If this is a dumb question, flame away. Does obesity count as an illness, or otherwise a lack of fitness?

[FiveSermon]

What is surprising is how intransigent they can be with the "F" portion of C&F: perfectly innocent people with legitimate illnesses (granted, serious illnesses) are refused bar admission fairly regularly.

If this is a dumb question, flame away. Does obesity count as an illness, or otherwise a lack of fitness?

It's a dumb question.

[lisjjen]

What is surprising is how intransigent they can be with the "F" portion of C&F: perfectly innocent people with legitimate illnesses (granted, serious illnesses) are refused bar admission fairly regularly.

If this is a dumb question, flame away. Does obesity count as an illness, or otherwise a lack of fitness?

It's a dumb question.

That's all the flame I get?

[bartleby]

apply for shift manager at McDonald's

Find a franchise KFC that'll take you instead. They pay more and don't worry about petty things like DUI's, the herp, and coming to work without pants.

so thats what they mean by stuffed chicken?

If only you knew.

is this real? i think this will quash my fried chicken cravings from now on

[Patriot1208]

That is exactly what I'm saying. The myth about difficulties in re: passing c and f is one of the most annoying, most persistent myths on this site.

How do you know this? Just curious, because despite hearing one state say my tiny record won't be a problem I'm still really nervous about the whole thing.

Obviously the "entry level" cases are private, as are the first-level appeals (typically still within the bar assoc.), but--as in all things--you can see the cases that make their way to the state supreme court of the jurisdiction in which you want to practice (provided they publish an opinion, which they will for precedent-setting stuff).

In GA, for instance, the leading cases include such holdings as "a criminal conviction need not be serious to provide evidence of lack of character for the practice of law. Repeated convictions for minor offenses can also prevent C&F passage. In this case, a man with 7 misdemeanor convictions was deemed to not possess adequate character..." (this is my recollection of an actual case; NOT a stringent standard.)

Avoid, obviously, things like fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, etc.

What is surprising is how intransigent they can be with the "F" portion of C&F: perfectly innocent people with legitimate illnesses (granted, serious illnesses) are refused bar admission fairly regularly.

I honestly think that 2 DUIs would be more likely to get you dinged from C&F for being a drunk than for being a criminal.

There was also that article in ATL just a couple months ago of the Ohio man being dinged by C&F due to the fact that he had substantial debt and had decided to keep his part time job at the PD's office, which they said meant he had no real plan of paying off the debt.

[artemish85]

To OP,

It doesn't sound like you're done drinking. Find out what you want most and don't expect a "program" to fix you. If you want to continue to drink to excess regularly and be a lawyer, go find a functioning alcoholic and ask for some advice. There are ways to do it if alcohol is a priority for you.

[Upton Sinclair]

IBstop drinking and driving.

[Patriot1208]

IBstop drinking and driving.

you are in way after that.

[Upton Sinclair]

IBstop drinking and driving.

you are in way after that.

lol....

woooooooosssssshh

[geoduck]

Alternate plan. OP can keep drinking and driving all he wants, but has to trade his car in for a motorcycle, preferably a crotch rocket. Problem fixes itself.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

FWIW I don't support drinking and driving at all, but I don't support destroying someone's livelihood over it. I could go into the destructive prison system as an analogy but I think you get my point.

And I say this as a hardliner who believes that anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license for life. I've seen the whole get-arrested-for-DUI-and-you're-fired destroy the careers of a couple people I knew. A guy I knew last year was ARRESTED for DUI and lost a gig (similar to TFA). The charges ended up being dropped a couple of days later, but he still lost his job. Ridiculous. I mean, a company can set its own ethics standards, but I find this norm barbaric.

[paratactical]

--ImageRemoved--

[paratactical]

And I say this as a hardliner who believes that anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license for life.

In a lot of places, this would also make it impossible to have a job.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

That is exactly what I'm saying. The myth about difficulties in re: passing c and f is one of the most annoying, most persistent myths on this site.

How do you know this? Just curious, because despite hearing one state say my tiny record won't be a problem I'm still really nervous about the whole thing.

Obviously the "entry level" cases are private, as are the first-level appeals (typically still within the bar assoc.), but--as in all things--you can see the cases that make their way to the state supreme court of the jurisdiction in which you want to practice (provided they publish an opinion, which they will for precedent-setting stuff).

In GA, for instance, the leading cases include such holdings as "a criminal conviction need not be serious to provide evidence of lack of character for the practice of law. Repeated convictions for minor offenses can also prevent C&F passage. In this case, a man with 7 misdemeanor convictions was deemed to not possess adequate character..." (this is my recollection of an actual case; NOT a stringent standard.)

Avoid, obviously, things like fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, etc.

What is surprising is how intransigent they can be with the "F" portion of C&F: perfectly innocent people with legitimate illnesses (granted, serious illnesses) are refused bar admission fairly regularly.

I honestly think that 2 DUIs would be more likely to get you dinged from C&F for being a drunk than for being a criminal.

Semi-serious question-how about a shitload of parking tickets? I think one should err on the side of not disclosing those because who gives a shit right, but how about a couple dozen of those? I'm asking for a friend, not me...but seriously not about me.

[txadv11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV2qtvbIPFE

[NZA]

FWIW I don't support drinking and driving at all, but I don't support destroying someone's livelihood over it. I could go into the destructive prison system as an analogy but I think you get my point.

And I say this as a hardliner who believes that anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license for life. I've seen the whole get-arrested-for-DUI-and-you're-fired destroy the careers of a couple people I knew. A guy I knew last year was ARRESTED for DUI and lost a gig (similar to TFA). The charges ended up being dropped a couple of days later, but he still lost his job. Ridiculous. I mean, a company can set its own ethics standards, but I find this norm barbaric.

I agree with you. There's a weird stigma about DUI that I just don't get. Sure, if someone's guilty of it, throw the book at them, I guess. But someone's life shouldn't be ruined for one stupid mistake.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

And I say this as a hardliner who believes that anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license for life.

In a lot of places, this would also make it impossible to have a job.

Yeah I know, that's why I've backed away from that stance. It's just hard to come up with fair punitive measures. Not everyone can afford alternative means of transportation depending on where they live (i.e. hiring a driver, public transportation if it sucks in the area), but at the same time, one who gets a DUI has proven themselves reckless and irresponsible. I know that for Restricted licenses in my state (i.e. when you're 15) are the right idea-you can only drive between set daylight hours, or only to and from work.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

FWIW I don't support drinking and driving at all, but I don't support destroying someone's livelihood over it. I could go into the destructive prison system as an analogy but I think you get my point.

And I say this as a hardliner who believes that anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license for life. I've seen the whole get-arrested-for-DUI-and-you're-fired destroy the careers of a couple people I knew. A guy I knew last year was ARRESTED for DUI and lost a gig (similar to TFA). The charges ended up being dropped a couple of days later, but he still lost his job. Ridiculous. I mean, a company can set its own ethics standards, but I find this norm barbaric.

I agree with you. There's a weird stigma about DUI that I just don't get. Sure, if someone's guilty of it, throw the book at them, I guess. But someone's life shouldn't be ruined for one stupid mistake.

It's such a prevalent policy that I don't really understand it. Drinking and driving is a terribly reckless and selfish thing to do, but what good does it do to ruin someone's life? Just like what good does it do to brand a kid who moons another car on a highway a sex offender? It just happened to a friend of mine. In this economy, is it right to take away someone's job, and their livelihood? Sure, punish people, but punitive measures reach a ceiling where they just become plain cruel.

Hell, I can BEGIN to understand the "convicted for DUI and you're fired clause." But just being arrested for it? That's way, way over the top.

[paratactical]

And I say this as a hardliner who believes that anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license for life.

In a lot of places, this would also make it impossible to have a job.

Yeah I know, that's why I've backed away from that stance. It's just hard to come up with fair punitive measures. Not everyone can afford alternative means of transportation depending on where they live (i.e. hiring a driver, public transportation if it sucks in the area), but at the same time, one who gets a DUI has proven themselves reckless and irresponsible. I know that for Restricted licenses in my state (i.e. when you're 15) are the right idea-you can only drive between set daylight hours, or only to and from work.

I would argue that permanent driving penalties would be reasonable for multiple DUIs, but I would hesitate to permenantly revoke or change priviledges after the first offense. As it stands, my home state revokes driving rights for a year after the first offense and it gets more severe with each subsequent act.