Top Law Schools

Hypothetically, if you smoked marijuana in the summer before law school fairly regularly, does this preclude employment? ecstasy maybe 6 or 7 times 2 years before law school? Cocaine twice 2 years before law school? Assuming straight-edge lifestyle for 3 years in law school plus one year clerkship, that should be more than 5 years since the really bad stuff, about 4 years off grass. what is the policy? Is it different than what i can find searching threads/DOJ website?

Anonymous User wrote:Hypothetically, if you smoked marijuana in the summer before law school fairly regularly, does this preclude employment? ecstasy maybe 6 or 7 times 2 years before law school? Cocaine twice 2 years before law school? Assuming straight-edge lifestyle for 3 years in law school plus one year clerkship, that should be more than 5 years since the really bad stuff, about 4 years off grass. what is the policy? Is it different than what i can find searching threads/DOJ website?

Look at OPMs security clearance standards. That is what is going to kill you. I believe anything other than pot is an automatic permanent disqualifier.

Honestly, you have close to zero chance of getting the security clearance unless you lie (which you SHOULD NOT do). I have my TS and it was basically understood that pot was ok a few times (although I've never done it) but it had to be at least 5-7 years in the past, and anything other then pot was basically a no go. I personally had to write an addendum for because I admitted to 4 beers a month underage. And it delayed my security clearance an extra two months.

Patriot1208 wrote:Honestly, you have close to zero chance of getting the security clearance unless you lie (which you SHOULD NOT do). I have my TS and it was basically understood that pot was ok a few times (although I've never done it) but it had to be at least 5-7 years in the past, and anything other then pot was basically a no go. I personally had to write an addendum for because I admitted to 4 beers a month underage. And it delayed my security clearance an extra two months.

Yeah, that's what I remembered from my security manager days. You won't even get a Secret with that much prior drug use that recent. God help you if they find out during the investigation for a TS and you didn't disclose. (Federal offense...major C&F issue).

Just curious... How would they find out about prior drug use? No one has receipts and I doubt anyone interviewed from one's past would admit to recreational drug use.

I know that everyone knows to disclose on these background checks, so I assume there is some way that they find out. But, I cannot imagine how.

12(b)(6) wrote:Just curious... How would they find out about prior drug use? No one has receipts and I doubt anyone interviewed from one's past would admit to recreational drug use.

I know that everyone knows to disclose on these background checks, so I assume there is some way that they find out. But, I cannot imagine how.

Well, if your smart they find out from you. If you lie and they find it, you likely won't ever be a lawyer in any state. You'd be amazed at what OPM investigators find out during TS interviews. I have a few friends that do that...they are very very good at tracking down people and information. You will be providing them with names and addresses the whole way back to high school (or 10 years if that far out of hs) and they will start talking to people. They are also very good at tracking down information on the internet (e.g. this post).

For a Secret clearance, they only do national/local agency and credit check generally. (NACLAC and Credit)

Again, if you get caught lying, you will be charged with a felony. I personally know of two people who received jail time for lying about this very thing.

12(b)(6) wrote:Just curious... How would they find out about prior drug use? No one has receipts and I doubt anyone interviewed from one's past would admit to recreational drug use.

I know that everyone knows to disclose on these background checks, so I assume there is some way that they find out. But, I cannot imagine how.

The investigation is quite thorough, and if they see discrepancies they will spot it. They will talk to neighbors, friends, employers, roomates, acquantinces, and in some cases you'll be required to take a polygraph. And if there is a difference in stories they will figure it out. You could hypothetically lie about it, but if some friend of yours gets in trouble for drug possession then you will come into a lot of scrutiny. And if it comes up on your polygraph your screwed (don't know if this is required for DOJ honors). Really disclosure is the only safe bet.

hj

daesonesb wrote:You'd have to lie to get the job. Do not think I am recommending this approach (I'm not) but here's a thought:

People on here err on the side of caution, they are highly risk averse (ironic as they take a risky bet even attending LS).
It isn't likely you will get caught lying about your drug use (so long as your friends aren't the loose lipped type) but the consequences of getting caught would be pretty catastrophic to your legal career. Like anything, it's a cost/benefit scenario you'll have to weigh out on your own.

For what it's worth, why in the world would you want to work for an institution where you'll have to pretend to be something you aren't? DOJ are boyscouts... and from your pharmacological history, well.. you aren't.

The way a lot of people get screwed is because of roomates/acquantinces/neighbors who have do not care if you get a job and will say things well "he used to party a lot and some of his friends were real shady, might have been into drugs". I knew I had to admit to underage drinking because my neighbors without a doubt told the investigator I had parties at my house when I was in high school and summers during college (while my parents were out of town) because they had complained to my parents about it.

Patriot1208 wrote:

daesonesb wrote:You'd have to lie to get the job. Do not think I am recommending this approach (I'm not) but here's a thought:

People on here err on the side of caution, they are highly risk averse (ironic as they take a risky bet even attending LS).
It isn't likely you will get caught lying about your drug use (so long as your friends aren't the loose lipped type) but the consequences of getting caught would be pretty catastrophic to your legal career. Like anything, it's a cost/benefit scenario you'll have to weigh out on your own.

For what it's worth, why in the world would you want to work for an institution where you'll have to pretend to be something you aren't? DOJ are boyscouts... and from your pharmacological history, well.. you aren't.

The way a lot of people get screwed is because of roomates/acquantinces/neighbors who have do not care if you get a job and will say things well "he used to party a lot and some of his friends were real shady, might have been into drugs". I knew I had to admit to underage drinking because my neighbors without a doubt told the investigator I had parties at my house when I was in high school and summers during college (while my parents were out of town) because they had complained to my parents about it.

Good point. I think each person can probably assess this on their own by thinking about how open they were with drugs / if they associated with people who were doing them.

I hung around some not so "with it" kids in highschool, and I could totally see an old teacher saying that it is possible that I was up to no good back then. I was actually the clean cut one of my friends, but that wouldn't matter to the DOJ.

Then again, I personally dont want to work for an institution with the uptight, Team America style morals of the DOJ. To each their own I suppose.

daesonesb wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

daesonesb wrote:You'd have to lie to get the job. Do not think I am recommending this approach (I'm not) but here's a thought:

People on here err on the side of caution, they are highly risk averse (ironic as they take a risky bet even attending LS).
It isn't likely you will get caught lying about your drug use (so long as your friends aren't the loose lipped type) but the consequences of getting caught would be pretty catastrophic to your legal career. Like anything, it's a cost/benefit scenario you'll have to weigh out on your own.

For what it's worth, why in the world would you want to work for an institution where you'll have to pretend to be something you aren't? DOJ are boyscouts... and from your pharmacological history, well.. you aren't.

The way a lot of people get screwed is because of roomates/acquantinces/neighbors who have do not care if you get a job and will say things well "he used to party a lot and some of his friends were real shady, might have been into drugs". I knew I had to admit to underage drinking because my neighbors without a doubt told the investigator I had parties at my house when I was in high school and summers during college (while my parents were out of town) because they had complained to my parents about it.

Good point. I think each person can probably assess this on their own by thinking about how open they were with drugs / if they associated with people who were doing them.

I hung around some not so "with it" kids in highschool, and I could totally see an old teacher saying that it is possible that I was up to no good back then. I was actually the clean cut one of my friends, but that wouldn't matter to the DOJ.

Then again, I personally dont want to work for an institution with the uptight, Team America style morals of the DOJ. To each their own I suppose.

I don't consider myself upt...... o well nvm.

Patriot1208 wrote:

daesonesb wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

daesonesb wrote:You'd have to lie to get the job. Do not think I am recommending this approach (I'm not) but here's a thought:

People on here err on the side of caution, they are highly risk averse (ironic as they take a risky bet even attending LS).
It isn't likely you will get caught lying about your drug use (so long as your friends aren't the loose lipped type) but the consequences of getting caught would be pretty catastrophic to your legal career. Like anything, it's a cost/benefit scenario you'll have to weigh out on your own.

For what it's worth, why in the world would you want to work for an institution where you'll have to pretend to be something you aren't? DOJ are boyscouts... and from your pharmacological history, well.. you aren't.

The way a lot of people get screwed is because of roomates/acquantinces/neighbors who have do not care if you get a job and will say things well "he used to party a lot and some of his friends were real shady, might have been into drugs". I knew I had to admit to underage drinking because my neighbors without a doubt told the investigator I had parties at my house when I was in high school and summers during college (while my parents were out of town) because they had complained to my parents about it.

Good point. I think each person can probably assess this on their own by thinking about how open they were with drugs / if they associated with people who were doing them.

I hung around some not so "with it" kids in highschool, and I could totally see an old teacher saying that it is possible that I was up to no good back then. I was actually the clean cut one of my friends, but that wouldn't matter to the DOJ.

Then again, I personally dont want to work for an institution with the uptight, Team America style morals of the DOJ. To each their own I suppose.

I don't consider myself upt...... o well nvm.

Lol, I mean as an institution. I'd never judge the parts by their membership in the whole.

what level security clearence do you need for the DOJ?

I'm not saying you should lie, but my drug usage was very similar to yours and I only copped to smoking pot three times on my TS application. The names I gave them were people I trusted and people who knew nothing of my drug usage. I know of at least 6 others who did the same thing for their TS. As long as you weren't slinging yayo to pay your way through undergrad you should know quite a few people who are oblivious to your drug use. I also know a guy whose ex told the investigators that they were regular cocaine users when they were together (which was true). This dude wrote a statement claiming the ex was only trying to sabotage his career. He was granted the TS clearance.

FYI, this is the form you will probably have to fill out: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf. Relevant questions are in part 23, page 14. They ask about drug use in the past 7 years.

Just answer truthfully. Lying about it will almost certainly disqualify you, but admitting to pre-law school drug use will not automatically disqualify you.

Read this handout from Yale: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/C ... curity.pdf

From the handout:

The standards regarding past misdeeds are somewhat flexible and will be determined at the discretion of DOJ reviewers on a case by case basis. However, it appears to us that any illegal drug use, within one year of application, will disqualify an applicant.

ggocat wrote:FYI, this is the form you will probably have to fill out: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf. Relevant questions are in part 23, page 14. They ask about drug use in the past 7 years.

Just answer truthfully. Lying about it will almost certainly disqualify you, but admitting to pre-law school drug use will not automatically disqualify you.

Read this handout from Yale: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/C ... curity.pdf

From the handout:

The standards regarding past misdeeds are somewhat flexible and will be determined at the discretion of DOJ reviewers on a case by case basis. However, it appears to us that any illegal drug use, within one year of application, will disqualify an applicant.

The form says 7 years, but for a TS you must go back to 10 years or your 18th birthday, which ever is more recent. I used to be a security manager in the military...

(Also says so in the Special Instructions for Completing this Form...). A TS will be an SSBI investigation.

You can always try the clinton approach of saying he smoked it but never inhaled

i thought they could test hair which can go back many, many years (depending on hair length).

If they did that then everyone would prob fail....

atlantalaw wrote:i thought they could test hair which can go back many, many years (depending on hair length).

atlantalaw wrote:i thought they could test hair which can go back many, many years (depending on hair length).

It goes back as long as the hair has been growing. You could always cut your hair to a shorter length. These tests are not commonplace in the federal government because they are expensive and not all together proven reliable.

blowhard wrote:The form says 7 years, but for a TS you must go back to 10 years or your 18th birthday, which ever is more recent. I used to be a security manager in the military...

(Also says so in the Special Instructions for Completing this Form...). A TS will be an SSBI investigation.

I don't think most DOJ honors program hires will require TS.

.

blowhard wrote:Again, if you get caught lying, you will be charged with a felony. I personally know of two people who received jail time for lying about this very thing.

You are so full of shit. How the hell would the prosecution prove BRD that you did drugs.

MrKappus wrote:

blowhard wrote:Again, if you get caught lying, you will be charged with a felony. I personally know of two people who received jail time for lying about this very thing.

You are so full of shit. How the hell would the prosecution prove BRD that you did drugs.

In the case I was the security manager for, OPM found multiple witnesses who were willing to testify, and found a hospital admission for a suspected overdose...at which point he confessed. He only got 15 days (was a civilian), but he end up with a felony conviction out of it.

In the other case, they confronted him with multiple witnesses including his mother who were going to testify and he confessed.

MrKappus wrote:

blowhard wrote:Again, if you get caught lying, you will be charged with a felony. I personally know of two people who received jail time for lying about this very thing.

You are so full of shit. How the hell would the prosecution prove BRD that you did drugs.

??? Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.