Drug use - Honors Attorney Programs Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know I’m jumping the gun since offers aren’t out. However, anyone know how strict non-doj agencies are about past drug use? Specifically within the past 6 months. Is it an auto-DQ?

[The Lsat Airbender]

What agency? What drug? Probably super bad news but who knows, you'd need to get lucky anyway for these spots.

[Anonymous User]

Very much depends on the agency.

For AUSAs, post-bar drug use of marijuana can be a disqualifier. Happened to one of my co-workers. We live in a state where it is legal (but obviously not federally), and he didn't pass the background check.

[TTTTgunner]

While on the subject, what’s the general look-back period for drug use for these honor programs? (DOJ and Non-DOJ)?

[Anonymous User]

Marijuana only, non-doj or AUSA.

[cavalier1138]

While on the subject, what’s the general look-back period for drug use for these honor programs? (DOJ and Non-DOJ)?

DOJ and AUSA go back 7 years, I believe.

Also, this is just a good reminder for any folks who know they're interested in government work: Just don't smoke pot. You'll live, and you'll save yourself a massive headache down the line.

[JOThompson]

Seven years. There may be some jobs that require a TS or SCI clearance, and I think those go 10 years back for lifestyle issues.

You'll hear different answers about how recent is too recent for post-bar drug use. I've heard that any MJ use within the last seven years can be a dealbreaker. Other folks here have said anything within two years. It must depend on the office. I would not touch the stuff or be around it though starting now, too many headaches.

[Anonymous User]

What about 3L year? Pre-bar, but recent enough that it needs to be disclosed.

[Anonymous User]

so for other honor program that do not require a security clearance, such as a DOL honors program, would not need a 7 year look back period? Would this be a better option to go for “non-DOJ” hp’s?

[Anonymous User]

Circling back again. Any thoughts on smoking MJ once in the past 12 months? Being honest in the app or mitigating factors? It’s all pre-bar as a first semester 3L

[Anonymous User]

Beyond disclosing it yourself on the application, how would the background check reveal drug use dating back 7 years (assuming there is no record of it, such as a photo, video, court record, etc.)?

[waffles7]

Be honest. You are more likely to be disqualified for lying than you are for doing marijuana. If you are doing a clearance process, they definitely find out because they interview many many people about you, and a common question asked is about whether the person has done drugs. I don't know about the other background processes, and if they go into as deep a dive for those. But to be frank, working in the government and becoming successful in the government, you potentially will have to get a clearance eventually. So if you lie on your initial background, it will put you in a tough spot when you apply for clearance later on. Which means, it's the best policy to be honest!

However, to note -

"Although the government generally wants law abiding citizens to work for them, they are most concerned with recent or current illegal activity and repeated use of hard narcotics, such as cocaine. The standards regarding past misdeeds are somewhat flexible. However, it appears to us that any illegal drug use, within one year of application, will disqualify an applicant. For the FBI, that period may be longer, three years for marijuana and ten years for hard drugs."

[Anonymous User]

Beyond disclosing it yourself on the application, how would the background check reveal drug use dating back 7 years (assuming there is no record of it, such as a photo, video, court record, etc.)?

Having gone through the DOJ check - they ask you if you used drugs in the last seven years, and you answer honestly because that’s what you’re affirming you’ll do.

More practically, you have to provide references of people who’ve known you in all the different places you lived during that time. Investigators talk to those people. You can’t guarantee those people will lie to federal investigators. The investigators can also talk to other people whose names you didn’t give them. That’s how they can find out. Will they find out every time you’ve used drugs? Probably not, but the risk of not disclosing is WAY higher than the risk of being honest.

(I know the OP asked about non-DOJ and I can’t say for certain what background check they require. But if it asks about drug use, that’s how they can find out.)

[raven1231]

The FBI/DOJ and anything requiring security clearance will ask you while you're hooked to a polygraph. They are historically unreliable but that doesn't stop them from using them. Not sure if the AUSA requires a poly as part of their backgrounds though.

[Anonymous User]

No, USAOs don't polygraph. I'm not actually aware of any DOJ component that polygraphs attorneys (as opposed to agents).

[raven1231]

No, USAOs don't polygraph. I'm not actually aware of any DOJ component that polygraphs attorneys (as opposed to agents).

Interesting! I was offered an analyst position with the FBI after obtaining my Masters and prior to law school and they polygraphed me. I wonder why they don't for attorneys. Either way it's a good thing given their inaccuracies.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know. I'd speculate it's because of all the legal ethical requirements of candor and the fact that attorneys have to pass a C&F process independent of working for the government, but that's a total guess. (Also I can't guarantee it never happens, I've just never heard of it.)

[QContinuum]

No, USAOs don't polygraph. I'm not actually aware of any DOJ component that polygraphs attorneys (as opposed to agents).

Interesting! I was offered an analyst position with the FBI after obtaining my Masters and prior to law school and they polygraphed me. I wonder why they don't for attorneys. Either way it's a good thing given their inaccuracies.

Maybe because the polygraph requirement is specific to the national security agencies (FBI/CIA/etc.), and not to Justice (Main Justice or USAOs) more generally.

(I agree, incidentally, that the polygraph is scientifically unsound and adds, if anything, negative value, by falsely disqualifying at least some strong candidates and deterring others from even applying. But, obviously, whether agencies should polygraph is distinct from whether they do - just like whether MJ use should be disqualifying for federal employment is different from whether it does.)

I'd be interested in hearing whether lawyers actually working at the national security agencies get polygraphed. My guess would be yes, but I don't know.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, it looks like I spoke too broadly and Main Justice/USAO are different from the CIA and FBI. Both their legal employment pages state that attorneys get polygraphed. So I take that part back.

[raven1231]

Yeah, it looks like I spoke too broadly and Main Justice/USAO are different from the CIA and FBI. Both their legal employment pages state that attorneys get polygraphed. So I take that part back.

That makes sense. I was going to say it would be odd if attorneys were they exception. Either way good to know I suppose for whatever it's worth.