Top Law Schools

Conventional wisdom is that even a single postbar toke will get you dinged at DOJ. I would love to know if there have been any exceptions and if so, if someone could explain (ie how long they mitigated, therapy, etc).

So I’ve be told that a single, post-bar prescription drug use that was not prescribed to you, but used for its intended purpose would not be issue?

I was told directly that post-bar drug use was a dealbreaker, but I was also getting hired through the honors program so within ~2 years of passing the bar. I don’t know if the time frame changes if you’re applying later in your career/further away from the bar. I also wasn’t given any distinctions for prescription vs. illegal drugs, but more that it didn’t come up than anything else.

Anonymous User wrote:I was told directly that post-bar drug use was a dealbreaker, but I was also getting hired through the honors program so within ~2 years of passing the bar. I don’t know if the time frame changes if you’re applying later in your career/further away from the bar. I also wasn’t given any distinctions for prescription vs. illegal drugs, but more that it didn’t come up than anything else.

Is this the sort of thing you’d be auto-dinged and notified of right away? I disclosed many months ago during an interview, again post-job offer, and again at the beginning of the BI. My references and employers are still being contacted months later despite my disclosure?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I was told directly that post-bar drug use was a dealbreaker, but I was also getting hired through the honors program so within ~2 years of passing the bar. I don’t know if the time frame changes if you’re applying later in your career/further away from the bar. I also wasn’t given any distinctions for prescription vs. illegal drugs, but more that it didn’t come up than anything else.

Is this the sort of thing you’d be auto-dinged and notified of right away? I disclosed many months ago during an interview, again post-job offer, and again at the beginning of the BI. My references and employers are still being contacted months later despite my disclosure?

If you disclosed during an interview and were offered the position anyway I would feel confident you’re fine. I can’t say for *absolute* certain bc I’ve lived an incredibly sheltered and boring life, so didn’t run into any issues. However, when I was told about the post-bar drug use, it was pre-offer, as part of the interview, and it was couched very much as a “these are the things that WILL be a problem so if you have anything like this in your background let’s figure it out now so we don’t waste anyone’s time” (definitely not those words but that was the tone). If I had had one of those dealbreakers I really don’t think they would have gone forward with the offer because they know what’s going to torpedo you and don’t want to waste anyone’s time if they can’t hire you. I think also they tend to want to give you the chance to withdraw rather than have an actual finding of something bad on your official background check. (A legal assistant once quit after like 3 weeks and the rumor was that she wasn’t going to pass the background check and they gave her a heads-up to quit or they’d have to fire her. They were finishing the check after she started.)

So if you told them in an interview and then after the offer and everything is still progressing, I can’t offer an absolute guarantee, but that tells me that the office hiring you believes you’ll pass, and they should have a good handle on that kind of thing.

I’d be particularly curious about marijuana. Many millennial lawyers working in states where it’s locally-legal use pot on a weekly or even daily basis. IMO, it’s a bit of a cultural phenomenon. Now, some of those lawyers are far enough out of school, burned out with biglaw, that they are looking at DOJ. And that sf86 is just plain nasty!

I could understand why it matters for an FBI agent (testifying on the stand); and I can understand, to a point, that breaking federal law is not cool if you want to work for the feds GOING FORWARD— but to hold these talented lawyers to account (and I know probably close to a 100 that smoke, though not saying most wanna go fedgov) is just plain stupid imo.

Anonymous User wrote:I’d be particularly curious about marijuana. Many millennial lawyers working in states where it’s locally-legal use pot on a weekly or even daily basis. IMO, it’s a bit of a cultural phenomenon. Now, some of those lawyers are far enough out of school, burned out with biglaw, that they are looking at DOJ. And that sf86 is just plain nasty!

I could understand why it matters for an FBI agent (testifying on the stand); and I can understand, to a point, that breaking federal law is not cool if you want to work for the feds GOING FORWARD— but to hold these talented lawyers to account (and I know probably close to a 100 that smoke, though not saying most wanna go fedgov) is just plain stupid imo.

Not to hijack this thread, but a related question: any thoughts on pre-bar marijuana use during law school but nothing post-bar? (Particularly for someone who's applying a couple years out, not through Honors.)

Anonymous User wrote:I’d be particularly curious about marijuana. Many millennial lawyers working in states where it’s locally-legal use pot on a weekly or even daily basis. IMO, it’s a bit of a cultural phenomenon. Now, some of those lawyers are far enough out of school, burned out with biglaw, that they are looking at DOJ. And that sf86 is just plain nasty!

I could understand why it matters for an FBI agent (testifying on the stand); and I can understand, to a point, that breaking federal law is not cool if you want to work for the feds GOING FORWARD— but to hold these talented lawyers to account (and I know probably close to a 100 that smoke, though not saying most wanna go fedgov) is just plain stupid imo.

I mean, it's illegal under federal law. Using it is breaking federal law. It's kind of hard to hire someone to enforce the law who's been breaking it regularly (depending on timing, of course - not talking about in the distant past). It's dumb, but it's not illogical until the law changes.

As to the most recent post - it will probably depend on how much you used/how frequently and how long it's been. All I know is that it wouldn't have to be a dealbreaker, but it would likely be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Despite what I just said about marijuana still being illegal federally, pretty sure using marijuana isn't going to raise flags like heroin or meth would.

I hope there aren't any exceptions, because boy would it be hypocritical for someone to become a federal prosecutor in a department that prosecutes people for drugs, and for the department to look the other way when one of their own commits the same crime and admits it to federal prosecutors.

Anonymous User wrote:I hope there aren't any exceptions, because boy would it be hypocritical for someone to become a federal prosecutor in a department that prosecutes people for drugs, and for the department to look the other way when one of their own commits the same crime and admits it to federal prosecutors.

1. Brave use of anon.

2. Federal prosecutors generally don't spend their time on possession-for-use cases.

K fam, so just to crystallize our collective knowledge on this specific point: if you smoke marijuana, even once, after being barred, will you be banned for life from working at DOJ.

And look, no one here is arguing you should toke as a Fed. Rather, can it be mitigated, if so how many years.

Normally 3 years would be enough for even the most habitual users. It’s the post-bar thing that I’d like to know.

To the poster who cried “hypocrisy” — is it hypocritical to genuinely feel remorse for breaking federal law, demonstrate a commitment to abstinence, and then atone? That’s exaxtly who I’d want in DOJ, because it shows they’re human, they’ve wrestled with their conscience, they committed to do better, and they’re looking to make society better as a result.

Drugs are an illness. If someone can overcome, they deserve atonement. Of this I am certain.

Anonymous User wrote:Many millennial lawyers working in states where it’s locally-legal use pot on a weekly or even daily basis. IMO, it’s a bit of a cultural phenomenon.

I don't think pot use is quite as prevalent as you suggest. Further, many of the largest legal markets have not locally legalized recreational pot use (NY, TX, IL). (Even D.C.: D.C. itself has legalized recreational pot, but MD and VA, where many "D.C. lawyers" live and/or work, have not.) I think there are enough highly qualified, non-pot-using lawyers to fill DOJ's ranks many times over.

I think we can reasonably predict that any recreational pot use would be disqualifying for DOJ for at least several years, and the greater the use, the longer the disqualification.