How much will a misdemeanor hurt c and f Forum

[lawschoolsplit2023]

I’m 39 and had a blemish free record all my life. I’m being charged for my first ever crime at nearly 40 for some angry looks I gave some people in may out of anger who then filed charges with the DA in May for a protection order. No words even said.

If I graduate from law school spring 2030 at 45, giving me five years to separate myself from the misdemeanor and an addendum explaining most offenders don’t commit their first crime at 40, unless there were explainable circumstances will I have no trouble with the bar if this is my only issue?

[nixy]

Get a defense attorney and don’t get convicted. Unless there’s something you’re not telling us, angry looks aren’t the basis for a crime.

[lawschoolsplit2023]

Thanks for the reply. So if it gets dismissed it shouldn’t be a C and F issue?

Also the fact the few people I gave angry looks to filed a temporary PO, which isn’t final one when case is dismissed, and fact this misdemeanor case was open, even though hopefully gets dismissed and multiple people applied for a tpo still look really bad to character and fitness personnel?

[Dcc617]

Hey dude, you sound insane here. Step 1) take down this post. Step 2) hire an attorney.

Soliciting legal advice on an internet forum is a bad idea.

[lawschoolsplit2023]

I know character and fitness for bar is the ultimate check for background and everything but

1) when individuals apply to law schools, law schools don’t do background checks do they on candidates for admission?
2) if an individual were to transfer after first year to a higher ranked law school (southern cal to ucla) does the transfer institution run background checks on transfers or also likely not

[nixy]

I know character and fitness for bar is the ultimate check for background and everything but

1) when individuals apply to law schools, law schools don’t do background checks do they on candidates for admission?
2) if an individual were to transfer after first year to a higher ranked law school (southern cal to ucla) does the transfer institution run background checks on transfers or also likely not

Why would a background check matter? Are you planning to not answer honestly what they ask on the application?

The application will ask for all the information that the school wants/needs to know about your background; if it’s not on the application, they’re not going to consider it. Also, to my knowledge, you can’t run a background check on someone without their knowledge/consent (law enforcement excepted of course).

If you don’t answer honestly you may well run into problems when you apply for the bar because the bar association can check the information you provide them and the information they collect about you against what you included on your law school application. But none of that is the same as the law school running a background check. It’s no different for transfer applications.

(Also the difference between USC and UCLA is not big enough to make transferring worth it - if you have the grades to transfer from USC you have pretty much the same options that you’d have at UCLA.)

[lawschoolsplit2023]

Thank you. May I ask an additional question if you don’t mind? You’ll likely gather from it, my approach with dealing with problems, is likely unconventional compared to others, but all that aside:

Am late 30s with a perfect record. Then mentioned negative looks encounter with the individuals earlier this year, and possible charges filed. In previous post mentioned it was confirmed attorney confirmed there was a pending case, but now he is telling me someone else at DA just says it’s being investigated. So whether there is a pending case or not, there is no warrant with police almost six months later. I want to get a good handle on my health, move to the west coast and run my own business for a years, as prioritizing me and health over worrying about a pending case, seems most important now.

I’m unsure now if I want to practice law or attend law school and utilize my JD without taking the bar, but I do know for sure I want to attend law school.

If I apply to law school fall 2026 with my 2.9/178 and get admitted to Southern California or ucla through a miracle, we discussed before law schools don’t background check and because I am a little fearful now to confirm if there is a pending misd. case or not, if I filled out truthfully I’ve never been convicted of anything on my ls applications which I haven’t while not volunteering possible open case

1) would Southern California still check with my ssn my background and possibly see an (open case - ie unserved summons but no warrant) and rescind admission: or they won’t do background check?
2) if I do well at the top 20 school first year and can possibly transfer to Berkeley or Stanford then would they possibly run a crim background check on transfers and potentially find open case or likely not?

Motivation of these two questions is: if there is an open petty offense case based on lies, I don’t want to deal with now, and there is no warrant but there could be unserved summons went to old address, I would think there would be better chance of dismissal after a number of years, especially if a warrant was never issued (this is possible because sometimes summons is issued in lieu of warrant).

And I can attend law school and graduate by 2030, and then if something is open I can address it then with better chance of dismissal after so many years and then I can either use my JD in a non legal role or decide to take the bar after issue is resolved and just indicate I had no way of knowing something was open as I wasn’t ever “served”

So if I go this route afraid to address something possibly pending now (I have ptsd from three familial passings last few years) to make me feel safe, and even if Southern California doesn’t background check or find open case, is it unreasonable to expect also the higher ranked transfer school won’t discover it either or likely they will?

Thanks and consider answer a favor of great magnitude

[nixy]

You need to stop perseverating on this.

Answer what the law school applications ask. That is the information they will use in assessing your application. You have not been arrested for anything and you’re not aware of a warrant for your arrest. There’s nothing else to report.

“Opened” police cases aren’t a matter of public record. The police open tons of cases that never go anywhere. An “open” case isn’t going to show up on anything but an internal police database to which the public (including background checkers) don’t have access. You only have to worry about actually being charged with something.

Conversely, if the police have “opened” a case on you, there’s nothing you can do to get it “dismissed,” because there are no charges to dismiss. It’s the police’s prerogative to open a case on you, but also, a police investigation can’t be used against you, so there’s no harm, no foul.

Do you have a therapist? You should discuss this with them.

[lawschoolsplit2023]

Thanks so much for your reply. It is greatly appreciated.

If I may ask one thing further:

You mentioned how to just answer the application questions as asked.

Let’s just assume, for arguments sake some background check can show a pending case, how do you know that law schools and transfer law schools don’t do background checks?

If they have ones ssn couldn’t they check everybody, especially if you possibly transfer to a school like ucla Berkeley or Stanford wouldn’t they scrutinize everything even though obviously they aren’t the bar? Or do you believe even high ranked transfer law schools wouldn’t bother?

[metropolislettucemir]

With all due respect, OP, I've see you post dozens of threads and comments on TLS asking the same questions over and over again about C&F, transferring, etc. I don't know you, but from what I've gleaned from these posts, you seem to have anxiety and immaturity issues that would be better addressed by talking to a therapist.

You are hyper-fixated on very specific questions that, frankly, no internet stranger will be able to give you the answers to. You've been posting for months about the same problems, and it seems like there's usually no responses. If your scenarios are as unique to you as they are, and you are concerned about risking law school admissions, you would be better off spending the time privately talking to actual lawyers or admissions consultants who can give you the personalized feedback you need.

I mean this as gently as possible—instead of obsessing over questions on an online forum (where it's become very obvious to tell a post that is yours), you should get help in the real world to meaningfully address these issues that are giving you so much stress.

[lawschoolsplit2023]

@nixy - Thanks so much for your reply. It is greatly appreciated.

If I may ask one thing further:

You mentioned how to just answer the application questions as asked.

Let’s just assume, for arguments sake some background check can show a pending case, how do you know that law schools and transfer law schools don’t do background checks?

If they have ones ssn couldn’t they check everybody, especially if you possibly transfer to a school like ucla Berkeley or Stanford wouldn’t they scrutinize everything even though obviously they aren’t the bar? Or do you believe even high ranked transfer law schools wouldn’t bother?

[nixy]

@nixy - Thanks so much for your reply. It is greatly appreciated.

If I may ask one thing further:

You mentioned how to just answer the application questions as asked.

Let’s just assume, for arguments sake some background check can show a pending case, how do you know that law schools and transfer law schools don’t do background checks?

If they have ones ssn couldn’t they check everybody, especially if you possibly transfer to a school like ucla Berkeley or Stanford wouldn’t they scrutinize everything even though obviously they aren’t the bar? Or do you believe even high ranked transfer law schools wouldn’t bother?

Stop it.

I’m not going to assume that a background check can show an uncharged case because that’s just not true. You realize that the police don’t want people they’re investigating to know they’re being investigated, right? That would defeat the purpose.

Plus entities (at least non-law enforcement ones) can’t run background checks on you without your consent.

I shouldn’t even answer b/c I know you’re not going to believe me.