Arrested Forum

[Duvet]

.

[iamgeorgebush]

I would answer the question as stated. If the question asks only about being charged or convicted, then no need to disclose any arrests. If there is any ambiguity, though, err on the side of overdisclosure.

Re: explanations, I think that's the right approach not to explain, unless the crime is the sort that demands an explanation. That's how I approached things (I had some traffic violations and just listed them without explanation).

[griffin3575]

If the police were involved, you should disclose (especially if you were arrested for something serious). You will almost certainty need to disclose the arrested to the bar of whatever area you intend to practice, and they will likely have your law school application in hand. You don't want to have to discuss how you gamed the system.

Something along the lines of, "I was arrested and charged/convicted for…. It was dumb." is probably sufficient

Disclose, learn your lesson, move on.

[Duvet]

I would answer the question as stated. If the question asks only about being charged or convicted, then no need to disclose any arrests. If there is any ambiguity, though, err on the side of overdisclosure.

Re: explanations, I think that's the right approach not to explain, unless the crime is the sort that demands an explanation. That's how I approached things (I had some traffic violations and just listed them without explanation).

.

[Duvet]

If the police were involved, you should disclose (especially if you were arrested for something serious). You will almost certainty need to disclose the arrested to the bar of whatever area you intend to practice, and they will likely have your law school application in hand. You don't want to have to discuss how you gamed the system.

Something along the lines of, "I was arrested and charged/convicted for…. It was dumb." is probably sufficient

Disclose, learn your lesson, move on.

.

[Duvet]

Any other thoughts on this?

[AreJay711]

I think answering the question as written is fine. You probably don't need to write an explanation for getting thrown in the drunk tank unless they ask. Same deal with any kind of of minor in possession.

[griffin3575]

If the police were involved, you should disclose (especially if you were arrested for something serious). You will almost certainty need to disclose the arrested to the bar of whatever area you intend to practice, and they will likely have your law school application in hand. You don't want to have to discuss how you gamed the system.

Something along the lines of, "I was arrested and charged/convicted for…. It was dumb." is probably sufficient

Disclose, learn your lesson, move on.

Thanks for the reply.

I will certainly disclose the conviction as every C&F asks that, but my question is as to how much I should say beyond that and particularly in regards to being arrested. Conviction, punishment etc. are all included, just wondering about the 'arrested' part, and further about whether I have to give details as to why all of this happened beyond the actual citation/conviction.

If a question does not specifically ask whether I was arrested, especially given that otherd do specifically ask that question along with charges/convictions, then I am inclined to not say I was arrested unless consensus here is that being arrested is so central to the explanation required that irrespective of it not being mention in the prompt, it must be included.

My point is that if you were arrested for something like DUI, a conviction will imply an arrest, so why not just disclose?

Also, you will have to report the arrest to the bar, which will create a discrepancy with what you reported in your law school apps should you hide the arrest.

Would it be a big deal? Probably not. Can you talk your way out of it? Probably. If it were me though, I would rather avoid the situation entirely by being fully open about something no one will likely care about, even if the specific application doesn't require you to disclose it.

[Nebby]

Listen, your pissing in public or public intoxication or DUI is not going to stop you from getting into law school. But what you absolutely must do is at the very least take the above suggestion and add a brief explanation, such as "was arrested on DATE" and any other information, such diversion information or when probation was completed.

[Nebby]

If the police were involved, you should disclose (especially if you were arrested for something serious). You will almost certainty need to disclose the arrested to the bar of whatever area you intend to practice, and they will likely have your law school application in hand. You don't want to have to discuss how you gamed the system.

Something along the lines of, "I was arrested and charged/convicted for…. It was dumb." is probably sufficient

Disclose, learn your lesson, move on.

Thanks for the reply.

I will certainly disclose the conviction as every C&F asks that, but my question is as to how much I should say beyond that and particularly in regards to being arrested. Conviction, punishment etc. are all included, just wondering about the 'arrested' part, and further about whether I have to give details as to why all of this happened beyond the actual citation/conviction.

If a question does not specifically ask whether I was arrested, especially given that otherd do specifically ask that question along with charges/convictions, then I am inclined to not say I was arrested unless consensus here is that being arrested is so central to the explanation required that irrespective of it not being mention in the prompt, it must be included.

My point is that if you were arrested for something like DUI, a conviction will imply an arrest, so why not just disclose?

Also, you will have to report the arrest to the bar, which will create a discrepancy with what you reported in your law school apps should you hide the arrest.

Would it be a big deal? Probably not. Can you talk your way out of it? Probably. If it were me though, I would rather avoid the situation entirely by being fully open about something no one will likely care about, even if the specific application doesn't require you to disclose it.

The bar will fail you on the C&F if this occurs. Listen to Griff.

[bjsesq]

If there is any ambiguity, though, err on the side of overdisclosure.

[Duvet]

.

[Duvet]

Also, you will have to report the arrest to the bar, which will create a discrepancy with what you reported in your law school apps should you hide the arrest.

The bar will fail you on the C&F if this occurs. Listen to Griff.

.

[Nebby]

Also, you will have to report the arrest to the bar, which will create a discrepancy with what you reported in your law school apps should you hide the arrest.

The bar will fail you on the C&F if this occurs. Listen to Griff.

I don't quite get this. If a question doesn't explicitly ask whether I was arrested and instead just asks for convictions and/or charges, how could they fail me for not disclosing information that was not explicitly asked of me?

This is what I am seeking to guard against, so I am interested in some sort of an explanation.

We've given you plenty of explanation. Provide the facts, briefly, about any encounter where you have been arrested. It's that simple. If you've never been booked, then you don't need to worry. If you want better answers, tell us exactly what happened--instead of vague allusions.

[Duvet]

Also, you will have to report the arrest to the bar, which will create a discrepancy with what you reported in your law school apps should you hide the arrest.

The bar will fail you on the C&F if this occurs. Listen to Griff.

I don't quite get this. If a question doesn't explicitly ask whether I was arrested and instead just asks for convictions and/or charges, how could they fail me for not disclosing information that was not explicitly asked of me?

This is what I am seeking to guard against, so I am interested in some sort of an explanation.

We've given you plenty of explanation. Provide the facts, briefly, about any encounter where you have been arrested. It's that simple. If you've never been booked, then you don't need to worry. If you want better answers, tell us exactly what happened--instead of vague allusions.

.

[Nebby]

You just give them the facts. I was arrested for X in XX/XXXX. I was found guilty of one count of X in XX/XXXX. (If you had any probation, etc., then I successfully completed probation in XX/XXXX.) That's all you need to include, broski.

[Duvet]

You just give them the facts. I was arrested for X in XX/XXXX. I was found guilty of one count of X in XX/XXXX. (If you had any probation, etc., then I successfully completed probation in XX/XXXX.) That's all you need to include, broski.

.

[JAJAcinco]

I don't quite get this. If a question doesn't explicitly ask whether I was arrested and instead just asks for convictions and/or charges, how could they fail me for not disclosing information that was not explicitly asked of me?

This is what I am seeking to guard against, so I am interested in some sort of an explanation.

They might fail you by reasoning that you consciously avoided making a good faith effort to disclose relevant material. Although it wasn't explicitly asked for, its in the realm of the question. Remember that its flesh and blood people who will be evaluating your materials. I personally don't know if a discrepancy like the one we're talking about (ie not mentioning the arrest or number of arrests) will be enough to sink you on its own, but it very well could. Balancing the risk-reward, I think you should disclose all the legal facts of the police encounter. What's the point of getting into law school if you risk a C&F issue from the second you submit your application?

It sounds like your discussing a situation where you were arrested for X, Y , and Z, and only charged/convicted for X. C&F will know about X, Y, and Z - and may wonder whether your disclosure to the school was in good faith. I would list everything you were arrested for, and then explain whether those charges were dropped/resulted in conviction.

Final note: Some states have misleading language on statutes that may warrant some additional factual details. E.g. some states have drunkenness statutes with titles like "Public Lewd Swearing, Public Intoxication". You may want to provide details if you were only drunk and not swearing in public.

[Nebby]

You just give them the facts. I was arrested for X in XX/XXXX. I was found guilty of one count of X in XX/XXXX. (If you had any probation, etc., then I successfully completed probation in XX/XXXX.) That's all you need to include, broski.

Thanks for your help. One last clarification.

So for a question that says (Have you ever been charged with and/or convicted of a criminal offense, including any matters that may have been expunged?), thus making no mention of being arrested, you would say "I was arrested for X in XX/XXXX" rather than saying "I received a charge/conviction/citation for X in XX/XXXX" ?

That's the issue here and it's really just regarding wording.

In that instance, just say, "I was convicted of X in XX/XXXX." Since the question asks "charged" and "convicted," therefore anything you were "charged" with, but not convicted of, would be unnecessary.

[Duvet]

I don't quite get this. If a question doesn't explicitly ask whether I was arrested and instead just asks for convictions and/or charges, how could they fail me for not disclosing information that was not explicitly asked of me?

This is what I am seeking to guard against, so I am interested in some sort of an explanation.

They might fail you by reasoning that you consciously avoided making a good faith effort to disclose relevant material. Although it wasn't explicitly asked for, its in the realm of the question. Remember that its flesh and blood people who will be evaluating your materials. I personally don't know if a discrepancy like the one we're talking about (ie not mentioning the arrest or number of arrests) will be enough to sink you on its own, but it very well could. Balancing the risk-reward, I think you should disclose all the legal facts of the police encounter. What's the point of getting into law school if you risk a C&F issue from the second you submit your application?

It sounds like your discussing a situation where you were arrested for X, Y , and Z, and only charged/convicted for X. C&F will know about X, Y, and Z - and may wonder whether your disclosure to the school was in good faith. I would list everything you were arrested for, and then explain whether those charges were dropped/resulted in conviction.

.

[Duvet]

You just give them the facts. I was arrested for X in XX/XXXX. I was found guilty of one count of X in XX/XXXX. (If you had any probation, etc., then I successfully completed probation in XX/XXXX.) That's all you need to include, broski.

Thanks for your help. One last clarification.

So for a question that says (Have you ever been charged with and/or convicted of a criminal offense, including any matters that may have been expunged?), thus making no mention of being arrested, you would say "I was arrested for X in XX/XXXX" rather than saying "I received a charge/conviction/citation for X in XX/XXXX" ?

That's the issue here and it's really just regarding wording.

In that instance, just say, "I was convicted of X in XX/XXXX." Since the question asks "charged" and "convicted," therefore anything you were "charged" with, but not convicted of, would be unnecessary.

This is helpful and has helped me realize how I want to present the information, so thank you!