USAO Internship Background Check Questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Is very occasional marijuana use in the past year a deal breaker for a USAO internship? Automatic disqualification?

[Anonymous User]

Is very occasional marijuana use in the past year a deal breaker for a USAO internship? Automatic disqualification?

I don't know about automatic, but I was repeatedly told that any illegal drug use (which includes marijuana, even if legal in your state) after starting law school would be a significant black mark. Given the number of qualified candidates they have who don't have a history of drug use, I would think it would be an uphill climb, but others with more direct experience with internships in particular may know more.

[DobisFruit73]

I interned at a USAO office and I was told if you had done it within a year it was an automatic disqualification, if you had done it further out than that you just had to write an addendum on your background check, so long as the managing US Attorney was not strict about drug usage.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. I will go through the motions and see what happens. I will be totally transparent and honest, most importantly.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

just don't lie, seriously. it's not worth it. the only way a 1L/2L USAO internship has major impact on your professional career is if you lie about drug use and get caught.

[Anonymous User]

Automatic DQ. Honestly wouldn’t bother applying.

I’m not joking, happened to several folks I know last year across several different offices.

[Anonymous User]

Automatic DQ. Honestly wouldn’t bother applying.

I’m not joking, happened to several folks I know last year across several different offices.

Counterpoint -- I know students who disclosed, went through the extra process, and were hired as interns.

[Anonymous User]

Counterpoint -- I know students who disclosed, went through the extra process, and were hired as interns.

What is the "extra process"?

FWIW my anecdotal experience is that ongoing use often leads to DQ but past and terminated use (with suitable disclaimers)does not. The relevant time frames (e.g., how long ago the use was) scales with the drug/type of drug.

[Anonymous User]

Here's what I've gathered. Past occasional use is fine so long as it was casual and more than a year ago, prior to law school, and it is clear that this was like a young person experimenting thing and not like an I will do this again thing. Ongoing current use is probably an automatic DQ.

[Anonymous User]

The conventional wisdom at my school is that any drug use in the past year = automatic DQ. When I went through the process for my 1L internship, I disclosed a decent amount of (experimental) drug use in college and they just asked that I write an additional letter to the USAO's HR office telling them about it and why I stopped (which is a good opportunity to say you aren't planning on doing it again, etc. etc.). If you're stressed about your situation, I would just give the HR office a call -- they do this all the time and should give you candid advice about your chances.

If you ever want to work as a government lawyer, though, you absolutely shouldn't lie. Having to find another 1L internship at this point in the process is NBD; if they catch you lying on a background check form, that's pretty much the ballgame for federal employment.

[Anonymous User]

Noting that I have always filled out forms accurately (and would advocate that others do the same), what is the mechanism by which people get caught in lies about things like drug use? I imagine that at least some people, say, did coke at a college party (or nightclub while working in finance or whatever). Or smoked weed/dropped acid at Coachella/Burning Man/etc. Assuming no arrest/charges, I am confused about how the government would even find that out.

[Anonymous User]

So with the caveat that they don't necessarily go through the whole process for internships (will explain further), the background check for a USAO position involves interviewing people who have known you in all the places you've lived and worked for the last 7 years or so, and a drug test. You provide them with names of people, but they can also ask those people for suggestions/talk to people you haven't specifically designated. They will (or certainly can) ask those people about your drug use.

So either you have to be super careful to avoid connecting them with ANYONE who's EVER witnessed you do drugs, or you have to expect/require them to lie, and not everyone's comfortable with doing that. (The background check interviews are usually done by retired FBI agents.)

Now as noted, relatively isolated examples before law school are unlikely to pose a real problem. Doing coke at a few college parties is likely fine, ditto while working in finance (if that was before law school). So if you admit that and they talk to your college roommate and your roommate talks about you doing coke on occasion, all is fine. If you don't admit that and then they talk to your college roommate and your roommate talks about you doing coke, you are hosed, not because they care about the drug use, but entirely because of the lie.

Re internships: you fill out the same forms as an intern as permanent AUSAs do, but my understanding is that most offices don't do the full shebang of interviewing people or drug testing for an internship. The idea is that if there isn't a prima facie problem with your answers, they'll accept that for the semester. By prima facie problem I mean more reporting something that's an issue - admitted drug use, past convictions, but even foreign connections - and them requesting more information/looking into it further.

So in practice, if you lie about drug use for an internship, you're right, the USAO may never really be able to find out - leaving out any drug use means your background check won't raise any red flags to be addressed in the potentially truncated review process. But the process for interns is modeled on the process for full-time attorneys, and it's much harder to hide at that stage if they go around and interview people about it. Obviously, the more it was a significant part of your life, the harder it's going to be hide; if your drug use really was limited to a few parties in college, probably lots of your references will have no idea, but if you smoked weed daily all through college, or after graduating college but before law school you partied every weekend with a crowd of folks all regularly using molly, a lot more of the people that DOJ might talk to will have information that might give you away.

Looking longer term, another problem is that if you lie about it on your internship application, and you somehow end up working for DOJ down the line after graduation, they can (and will) compare the answers on your background check on both occasions. If your answers change, that will invite a LOT of scrutiny. And while you can just maintain the lie, on this later occasion they will definitely interview people and then you're stuck making sure that they don't talk to someone who did drugs with you in the past.

Again, being disqualified because you admit to past use is one thing, but being disqualified because you lied on the background check is another thing entirely, which will blackball you basically forever, and could even land you in front of the disciplinary arm of your state bar. So a lie earlier can be a big problem for a lie later.

tl;dr - the kind of drug use you can effectively lie about without risk that someone else will talk about it is also the kind of drug use unlikely to raise serious concerns, so there isn't much point in lying about it, when the consequences of lying are professionally much worse than the consequences of admitting.

The other way that the government finds out is just through what you said - people being accurate on the forms and admitting use. Lots of people don't want to start off their relationship with the government by lying (and I'm sure there are also plenty who don't care). And once you're barred, the ethical rules of conduct require candor. That may sound kind of goody-two-shoes, but ethical violations can very well torpedo your bar license, which is very bad.

[Anonymous User]

So with the caveat that they don't necessarily go through the whole process for internships (will explain further), the background check for a USAO position involves interviewing people who have known you in all the places you've lived and worked for the last 7 years or so, and a drug test. You provide them with names of people, but they can also ask those people for suggestions/talk to people you haven't specifically designated. They will (or certainly can) ask those people about your drug use.

So either you have to be super careful to avoid connecting them with ANYONE who's EVER witnessed you do drugs, or you have to expect/require them to lie, and not everyone's comfortable with doing that. (The background check interviews are usually done by retired FBI agents.)

Now as noted, relatively isolated examples before law school are unlikely to pose a real problem. Doing coke at a few college parties is likely fine, ditto while working in finance (if that was before law school). So if you admit that and they talk to your college roommate and your roommate talks about you doing coke on occasion, all is fine. If you don't admit that and then they talk to your college roommate and your roommate talks about you doing coke, you are hosed, not because they care about the drug use, but entirely because of the lie.

Re internships: you fill out the same forms as an intern as permanent AUSAs do, but my understanding is that most offices don't do the full shebang of interviewing people or drug testing for an internship. The idea is that if there isn't a prima facie problem with your answers, they'll accept that for the semester. By prima facie problem I mean more reporting something that's an issue - admitted drug use, past convictions, but even foreign connections - and them requesting more information/looking into it further.

So in practice, if you lie about drug use for an internship, you're right, the USAO may never really be able to find out - leaving out any drug use means your background check won't raise any red flags to be addressed in the potentially truncated review process. But the process for interns is modeled on the process for full-time attorneys, and it's much harder to hide at that stage if they go around and interview people about it. Obviously, the more it was a significant part of your life, the harder it's going to be hide; if your drug use really was limited to a few parties in college, probably lots of your references will have no idea, but if you smoked weed daily all through college, or after graduating college but before law school you partied every weekend with a crowd of folks all regularly using molly, a lot more of the people that DOJ might talk to will have information that might give you away.

Looking longer term, another problem is that if you lie about it on your internship application, and you somehow end up working for DOJ down the line after graduation, they can (and will) compare the answers on your background check on both occasions. If your answers change, that will invite a LOT of scrutiny. And while you can just maintain the lie, on this later occasion they will definitely interview people and then you're stuck making sure that they don't talk to someone who did drugs with you in the past.

Again, being disqualified because you admit to past use is one thing, but being disqualified because you lied on the background check is another thing entirely, which will blackball you basically forever, and could even land you in front of the disciplinary arm of your state bar. So a lie earlier can be a big problem for a lie later.

tl;dr - the kind of drug use you can effectively lie about without risk that someone else will talk about it is also the kind of drug use unlikely to raise serious concerns, so there isn't much point in lying about it, when the consequences of lying are professionally much worse than the consequences of admitting.

The other way that the government finds out is just through what you said - people being accurate on the forms and admitting use. Lots of people don't want to start off their relationship with the government by lying (and I'm sure there are also plenty who don't care). And once you're barred, the ethical rules of conduct require candor. That may sound kind of goody-two-shoes, but ethical violations can very well torpedo your bar license, which is very bad.

I think there's a HUGE gulf between pot and any other drug (even coke). Assume college recreational pot use is forgivable, anything else is probably not, even if recreational and far in your past. But it may depend heavily on your office. Consider simply waiting for your 7 years to be up.

[Anonymous User]

I think there's a HUGE gulf between pot and any other drug (even coke). Assume college recreational pot use is forgivable, anything else is probably not, even if recreational and far in your past. But it may depend heavily on your office. Consider simply waiting for your 7 years to be up.

Yeah, that's probably fair - I was just repeating the example given of a very recreational use and didn't mean to endorse the idea that coke specifically would be okay. In fact, I nearly said that heroin/meth would be pretty different from pot. I'm honestly not sure about coke or acid, but I'm also not a decisionmaker on this kind of thing (and have lived a very boring life myself so it's never come up), so just don't know. But it's true that coke/acid don't have even the ambiguous legality of pot. As with everything, the longer ago and the less you used, the better off you'll be.

FWIW, for a permanent position, I was told that post-bar drug use was a dealbreaker, which is obviously a different situation than the OP asking about an internship, but I figured I'd mention it. I agree with the above that for some people waiting the 7 years is probably the best way to avoid the whole issue.

(Amusingly, the investigator who did my most recent background check update was relieved to hear that I have a couple of drinks a month or so, because they said if I had said I didn't drink at all, they would have needed to investigate that further. So you kind of can't win!)

[Anonymous User]

Also, if you have past drug use (or other things the government considers proverbial skeletons), make sure to investigate the time frame your department considers. DOJ is 7 years, but State is 10 years.

[Anonymous User]

I think there's a HUGE gulf between pot and any other drug (even coke). Assume college recreational pot use is forgivable, anything else is probably not, even if recreational and far in your past. But it may depend heavily on your office. Consider simply waiting for your 7 years to be up.

For what it's worth, when I did my check for a USAO internship 1L year (~ 3 years out from college), I disclosed that I smoked weed occasionally in college and tried coke, acid and E one or twice, and it wasn't an issue. But again, I stopped after college and so had a few years between the drug use and the background check. And I do think it depends on the office (I can only speak to mine, which was on the west coast).

I agree with others that more time between drug use and the background check is better. They honestly expect you to report things here; from my friends who have gotten actual clearances, I've heard that reporting no drug use is a bigger red flag than some experimentation in college.

[Anonymous User]

They honestly expect you to report things here; from my friends who have gotten actual clearances, I've heard that reporting no drug use is a bigger red flag than some experimentation in college.

My own experience is different. It seems weird that no drug use would be a red flag when only ~50% of Americans have ever tried marijuana (and presumably the numbers for other drugs are lower). If drugs include "alcohol," then it makes more sense.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, that still makes it pretty common. And we’re not talking about the population at large, but people who go to law school and end up applying for jobs with DOJ (which admittedly could cut both ways, but my point is more that the 50% number doesn’t say very much in a vacuum).

[Anonymous User]

I think there's a HUGE gulf between pot and any other drug (even coke). Assume college recreational pot use is forgivable, anything else is probably not, even if recreational and far in your past. But it may depend heavily on your office. Consider simply waiting for your 7 years to be up.

For what it's worth, when I did my check for a USAO internship 1L year (~ 3 years out from college), I disclosed that I smoked weed occasionally in college and tried coke, acid and E one or twice, and it wasn't an issue. But again, I stopped after college and so had a few years between the drug use and the background check. And I do think it depends on the office (I can only speak to mine, which was on the west coast).

I agree with others that more time between drug use and the background check is better. They honestly expect you to report things here; from my friends who have gotten actual clearances, I've heard that reporting no drug use is a bigger red flag than some experimentation in college.

I disclosed less than that (recreational e use infrequently college, stopped after college, I graduated several years ago), and had my offer revoked after disclosing, so your mileage may vary. And for clarity's sake, I know for certain the revocation was because of the drug disclosure.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, that still makes it pretty common. And we’re not talking about the population at large, but people who go to law school and end up applying for jobs with DOJ (which admittedly could cut both ways, but my point is more that the 50% number doesn’t say very much in a vacuum).

Sure, but I am confused about why you think that saying "I have obeyed federal drug laws" is a red flag. I have gone through several background checks/clearances and there has been no intimation whatsoever that not having done drugs is a red flag.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, that still makes it pretty common. And we’re not talking about the population at large, but people who go to law school and end up applying for jobs with DOJ (which admittedly could cut both ways, but my point is more that the 50% number doesn’t say very much in a vacuum).

Sure, but I am confused about why you think that saying "I have obeyed federal drug laws" is a red flag. I have gone through several background checks/clearances and there has been no intimation whatsoever that not having done drugs is a red flag.

It is a red flag suggesting you are probably not a laid back, cool dude in a loose mood OR a hep cat, which can be hard to come back from even if you otherwise have a great application.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, that still makes it pretty common. And we’re not talking about the population at large, but people who go to law school and end up applying for jobs with DOJ (which admittedly could cut both ways, but my point is more that the 50% number doesn’t say very much in a vacuum).

Sure, but I am confused about why you think that saying "I have obeyed federal drug laws" is a red flag. I have gone through several background checks/clearances and there has been no intimation whatsoever that not having done drugs is a red flag.

It is a red flag suggesting you are probably not a laid back, cool dude in a loose mood OR a hep cat, which can be hard to come back from even if you otherwise have a great application.

Lol.

Yeah, I have no drug use to disclose and it’s never been brought up as a problem. I suspect “reporting no use is more of a red flag" is a thing that gets said to reassure applicants who report. But I can also see reporting nothing raising the question of whether you’re lying, depending on your age and background - not in the sense that they’re going to deny you for saying that, but that they might ask your references about your drug use a little more thoroughly.

[Anonymous User]

What about non-drug flags? I have a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge (no conviction).

[Anonymous User]

What about non-drug flags? I have a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge (no conviction).

AUSA here. You will be heavily questioned about this if you are given an offer, which triggers the standard national security investigation. The FBI will pull all the records from that incident to review what actually happened. That you were not convicted is not that significant to them. Whether this should stress you out or not just depends on what actually happened as stated in the police narratives.