As I spoke with this inquiring Lawyer, I soon learned that not only hadn't she screened her Client about his (or her, I really can't remember) Sobriety, but was pretty much aware, or at least believed, that the Client was still drinking. That's when I had to be brutally honest. To me, that a person is really and truly Sober is a first and minimum requirement before I will accept their case. Yet once I do agree to accept a case, I Guarantee that I will win the person's License back the first time, or else continue to represent them before the Secretary of State (technically, the Driver Assessment and Appeal Division, or DAAD), without further Legal Fee, until they do regain their License. In large part, I can make this win Guarantee because I don't take cases where a person isn't genuinely Sober.

I told her as much.

There's no real news in all of this. What I found so interesting was how she responded to my suggestion that she not take a case for a person who is still drinking. She pointed out that she didn't have the potential Client base that I have, and that she wanted to learn this area of the Law, get some experience, and try and establish herself, at least to some extent, as able to "do" License Appeals. She couldn't charge nearly what I do and certainly could not offer any kind of win guarantee. She felt she had no choice but to accept a "lesser" case than I would ever consider.

I thought about what she had said. No doubt, back when I was cutting my teeth, I took some cases I would never touch now. I didn't know better. Much of the "expert knowledge" I sell now was acquired in the school of hard knocks years earlier. Hopefully, experience and practice refines our skills. I know it has for me.

Yet I got lucky in one very important way; I had a background in alcohol and substance abuse assessment, counseling, diagnosis and treatment. It was then, and continues now, to be a field of study in which I have a keen interest. My undergraduate college degree is in Psychology, and I had seriously considered continuing those studies and earning a PhD, but the call to be a Lawyer was stronger. Thus, even as a young Lawyer, I knew all about Sobriety, and the important role it plays in a Michigan Driver's License Appeal.

The DAAD certainly knows better.

In fact, a person should think of the whole Michigan License Appeal process this way: The state needs to make sure anyone winning back their Driver's License is a safe bet to remain Sober forever. Rather than take the chance that even one person who might drink again slips through the cracks and gets a License, the state sets the bar rather high, figuring that it is far better for a few Sober people to have their Appeals Denied and come back next year. The theory behind this seems to make sense, at least at first glance, but in practice, it can be a catastrophic and demoralizing loss to someone who really is Sober, but had his or her License Appeal turned down for some technicality.

This means that Sobriety is a first and necessary requirement to win a License Restoration Appeal, but it's hardly enough. It's a starting point, but nothing more. It's kind of like wanting to go to college at Harvard; you'll need a high school diploma to be considered, but you'll need a lot more than just that.

Then, I realized something. Of all the Lawyers out there advertising that they "do" License Restorations, to whatever extent, I'm the only one who makes a big deal about the requirement that a person be Sober before I'll take their case. Then again, I'm the only one requiring Sobriety AND providing a win Guarantee.

I've seen other sites referencing that the DAAD requires a period of abstinence from alcohol as a prerequisite to filing a License Appeal, but no one goes into any detail about how such past abstinence needs to translate into proof of likely future abstinence. In one of my earlier blog articles, I pointed out that merely being abstinent is not enough; a person must be really and truly Sober, as well.

Even a quick glance around this site and my blog shows that I very prominently indicate that I am only interested in Representing people who have quit drinking and gotten Sober. I have not seen anything like that on any other site.

This is as much an ethical issue for me as anything else. I have my Guarantee, and the reason I can offer it is because I don't take cases that can't win. If I take a case, I plan on winning it the first time. Given my Guarantee, if I don't win the first time, my workload precisely doubles, and my income gets cut squarely in half. Thus, I'm every bit as anxious and motivated to get my Client back on the road as soon as possible as they are to get there. But I do not want to put anyone back on the road that hasn't honestly quit drinking. I am here to help Sober people put what is most often the last piece of the puzzle back in place.

I don't want to help anyone "skirt" the system. While I agree that some of the technical rules governing License Appeals are burdensome, and perhaps, at times, a bit too much, I wholeheartedly agree with the underlying goal of the License Restoration process. I only want to help those who have made the profound transformation from drinker to non-drinker reinstate their Driving privileges.

By screening out the "scammers" and those who are still drinking, I avoid getting mixed up with those people who the whole License Restoration Appeal process is designed to keep out, anyway. On top of that, my conscience is clear.

I've been Practicing Law for 22 years, and nothing surprises me anymore. Still, I do find it kind of strange that a person will call my Office, each of us being complete strangers to the other, and within a few minutes will tell me, as if we're both "in" on the secret, something to the effect that they know the DAAD won't give a License back unless you admit you're an alcoholic (wrong!) and that they've been to AA, and are willing to say whatever I need them to say, or that they should say, in order to win their case. Then, they'll tell me that, no matter what the state thinks or says, they are able to drink, or control their drinking, or have a glass of wine every now and then with dinner, or something similar.

Anyone who says or believes that is about a hundred million miles from being Sober, and is even further away from ever becoming one of my Clients.

This really comes back to the idea that you can't fake Sobriety, or at least not well enough to fool anyone who knows real Sobriety. There is a kind of gratitude and a kind of "aura" that just emanates from a genuinely Sober person that is keenly and obviously missing from someone who still drinks, or even thinks they can drink.

As I continued my conversation with the younger Lawyer, I also pointed out that every time I show up for a Hearing at the DAAD Office in Livonia, I come in with a Client who is Sober. Whatever else may or may not be in any particular case, my Client's Sobriety is always established. I told this Lawyer that the last thing you ever want to do is just show up with someone willing to pay your Fee for a chance at winning back their License, if they're lacking a true commitment to Sobriety. Even if the Client is rich, and couldn't care less about the money, there is a cost to the Lawyer's reputation for being perceived as someone who will bring in a Client that does not meet certain minimum threshold Sobriety requirements. I would never want any of the Hearing Officers before whom I appear to think I would ever take a case for someone who is not honestly alcohol-free. Anyone who is still drinking is a train wreck of a Client for a Michigan License Restoration case as well as the Lawyer who Represents them.

I don't have that problem. I may be missing out on a lot more cases that I could take, and the money that would come with them, but my integrity is not for sale, and my reputation, even in the very small world in which I operate, is important to me. And if it wasn't that way, there's a good chance anyone who has read this far wouldn't have done so otherwise.

I then concluded my discussion with the other Lawyer by reminding her of the old cliche that anything really worth doing, is worth doing right.

In this third and final installment, we will look at both standard and "special" conditions of Probation, and try and get a feel for what being "on Probation" for a DUI case really means.

At this point, we can move on from our County-by-County comparison, and examine what "Probation," and being on it (especially for a Drunk Driving charge), really means. Probation begins with the Judge signing an Order, which is a document called an Order of Probation.

An Order of Probation is a list of things the Judge Orders a person to do, as well as some they are NOT allowed to do. All Courts, independent of location, forbid many of the same things while a person is on Probation. Let's look at some "standard" conditions of Probation, beginning with the things a person is Ordered NOT to do:

• Not violate any criminal law of any unit of government.
  
• Not leave the state without the consent of this court.
  
• Make a truthful report to the probation officer monthly, or as often as the probation officer may require, either in person or in writing, as required by the probation officer.
  
• Notify the probation officer immediately of any change of address or employment status.
  
• Not purchase or possess a firearm.
  
• Not consume any alcohol.
  
• Not use or possess any controlled substances or drugs without a valid prescription (medical marijuana is specifically prohibited by many Courts).

In Oakland County, almost every Court requires alcohol and/or drug testing while on Probation, or for at least a part of it.

Macomb and Wayne County Courts sometimes impose a testing requirement, but never to the extent imposed by the Courts in Oakland County. Usually, if a Macomb or Wayne County Court requires testing, it will be for a specific period of time, not the entire duration of a person's Probation, and it will usually be required less frequently than it would be in Oakland.

Many Oakland County Courts, and a few Wayne County Courts require some community service, or some time on the Court work program. With the occasional exception of the Court in Romeo, community service and/or a work program is NEVER Ordered in Macomb County.

Depending on how well or poorly a person scores on the mandatory alcohol assessment test, they may be required to complete anything from a short alcohol education program to one that is longer, or to enroll in alcohol and/or substance abuse counseling. This can range from one on one counseling to group counseling to the completion of some kind of outpatient rehab program, often called an "IOP," for "Intensive Outpatient Program."

A Judge may Order other things that are relevant to a person's case. If a person caused an accident, repaying the other party, or the owner of any property damaged may be part of a person's Sentence. Thus, if a person ran into and damaged a STOP sign, they will likely be Ordered to repay the city for the repair and/or replacement of the sign.

This is not an exhaustive list of the things that a person can face when being placed on Probation for a DUI. It is always up to the Judge to decide what a person is not allowed and forbidden to do, and what they must get done while under the jurisdiction of the Court.

And this really brings us to what it really means to be "on Probation." As an alternative to Jail, Probation is part opportunity to show that the Judge was right in agreeing to not just lock someone up for a DUI, part opportunity to learn a few things, and part opportunity to make a few life changes.

The reader might be surprised to learn that the number of people who violate their Probation is significant. You'd think only an idiot would ever test positive for alcohol after being told not to drink, and that they'd be tested to make sure they're complying. Yet a lot of people get caught. From the Court's point of view, this helps expose people who have deep-seated alcohol problems, those who just refuse to follow orders, and those who are just plain idiots.

The same holds true for people who pick up a new Offense while on Probation for a prior charge. Beyond just being able to lock a person up in Jail for not following orders, either testing positive for alcohol and/or drugs, or picking up a new criminal case, a Judge seeing this kind of behavior has an opportunity to re-evaluate what kind of intervention or rehabilitation a person needs. Thus, if a person tested out at the PSI stage as not having an alcohol problem, and avoided any kind of classes or counseling, and thereafter tests positive for alcohol, or picks up yet another DUI, the Judge can go back and beyond just deciding to punish them with Jail, Order that they go into some kind of intensive counseling or rehab.

The whole point of any Probation is that a person should emerge from it having learned a lesson. In a more perfect world, the mere expense and inconvenience of a DUI, including the Fines, Court costs and Legal Fees, insurance increases and other financial consequences would be more than enough to deter anyone from ever having a repeat performance. All too often, however, it does not, and people make the same mistake again.

Probation is an opportunity for the Judge to see how well a person uses their break. And to be clear, Probation is always a break. A person does not have to follow the Judge's Orders. Instead, they can just do the Jail time, instead. Yet in my almost 22 years of being a DUI Lawyer, I have never met anyone who would rather spend 93 days in Jail rather than not drink, and prove it, and/or attend a few classes.

Most people complete Probation without a hitch. Everyone says they will; not everyone does. As the saying goes, however, "the proof is in the pudding." And that's really what Probation is really all about.

First, we'll assumImpaired Driving" (OWVI). e that the evidence against Dan is solid, that the case is not going to be magically dismissed somehow, and that his BAC (Bodily Alcohol Content) was about a .14, which is not too high (remember, .17 and above can trigger a "High BAC" charge).

Second, we'll assume that Dan's DUI, meaning his original charge of "Operating While Intoxicated"(OWI) charge will be plea-bargained down to the lesser charge of "Impaired Driving" (OWVI).

Third, we'll assume that I am handling the case. I'll make sure that when we talk about Dan being put on Probation, that means Probation with NO Jail. DUI cases are special, and properly handling them requires specialized knowledge and skill. While I can't speak for any other DUI Lawyers, I can enthusiastically advise the reader to NOT hire some Lawyer who just "does" DUI cases - along with all kind of other stuff.

Finally, we'll assume that Dan has been thoroughly prepared to take his written alcohol assessment test, and undergo the whole PSI interview.

In Macomb County, it can almost always be worked out so that a person would face no more than a year's Probation in any Court. In certain places, like Shelby Township and New Baltimore, I can probably keep my Client off of any kind of Probation, meaning that we might be able to wrap his or her case up with little or nothing more than the payment of fines and costs. In other cities, like Eastpointe, Roseville, Sterling Heights and Warren, I might be able to help the Client avoid what's called "Reporting Probation." Instead of having to show up once a month and meet with a Probation Officer, a person can get "Non-Reporting Probation," and will simply be under the "eye" of the Court for the next year. Obviously, if the person gets Arrested and/or Convicted for a new Offense, he or she will be in big trouble.

In places like Clinton Township, Romeo, and St. Clair Shores, I should be able to keep my Client's Probation to no longer than a year, although these Courts will generally require that the person does, in fact, Report for that year. If my Client's case is pending in one of these Courts, I will shift the focus of our alcohol assessment and PSI preparation from trying to completely avoid Probation, which is not likely, to avoiding the kind of "do this and do that" Probation that is sometimes called "Probation from Hell."

The bottom line is that Macomb County still is the best place to wind up facing a DUI. Now, we'll turn our attention to Wayne and the Oakland Counties.

Most DUI Defendants in Wayne County will wind up on some kind of Probation. Unlike a few of the most "forgiving" Macomb County Courts, where a person can just pay Fines and Costs and walk out of the Court with no strings attached, the most lenient outcome in any Wayne County District Court will likely be something like Non-Reporting Probation.

Certain Courts, like Livonia Romulus and Westland, have a "Work Program," although picking up litter in an orange vest is usually reserved for people whose situations are more severe than Dan the Driver's 1st Offense DUI. Despite their "work programs," these 3 Courts are amongst the best to be in, particularly if a person is facing a DUI.

The Courts of the various Grosse Pointes often surprise people. While careful navigation through these Courts is essential to insure the most lenient outcome possible, there is a decided lack of the elitist sentiment one might fear, especially if the person facing the DUI is a non-resident.

A DUI in Harper Woods, Plymouth-Canton, Dearborn and Dearborn Heights will almost always result in a Reporting Probation Sentence, but, like all the Courts in Macomb, with some careful attention to the right details, Jail can be completely avoided.

Oakland County is another world. Let's get the really bad news out of the way. In the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills (the 48th District Court serves Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Bloomfield Township, Bloomfield Village, West Bloomfield, Keego Harbor, Orchard Lake Village and Sylvan Lake) there is a Judge who regularly sends everyone, including first time DUI Offenders, to Jail. The reader may remember a bit of a "dust up" over this in the news, when, back in July of 2011, former NBA star and U of M "fab fiver" Jalen Rose was Sentenced to 20 days in Jail for a 1st Offense DUI. Rose's celebrity brought no benefit to him as this Judge sent Rose, as she does almost everyone else, to the Oakland County Jail for a short stint before beginning his term of Probation.

Although this is a single exception, the Probationary terms for a DUI in Oakland County are longer and more difficult than in either Macomb or Wayne County. Very few Probation Departments in Macomb or Wayne will Recommend a Probationary term of more than 1 year if the Client has been thoroughly prepared for the PSI, and even if such a Recommendation is made, I am almost always rather handily able to get that cut down by the Judge.

In Oakland County, it is not terribly uncommon to see the Probation Department of any Court Recommend an 18 month term of Probation, even in a 1st Offense DUI case. This is why I emphasize the importance of being prepared for the PSI process, and knowing how to avoid any unnecessary points on the alcohol assessment test. With enough effort (and a dash of luck), I can at least help shave off those extra six months.

Beyond the well-known 48th District Court, the 52-3 District Court in Rochester (serving Rochester, Rochester Hills, Auburn Hills, Addison Township, Lake Angelus, Oakland Township, Orion Township, Oxford Township, as well as the Villages of Lake Orion, Leonard, and Oxford) upholds a rather well deserved reputation for being pretty tough. I can best put it this way: If I were facing a DUI, I would rather have that same case decided in ANY Court in Macomb or Wayne County over having it wind up in either the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, or the 52-3 Court in Rochester.

Yet I like each of the Judges in these Courts, and find them to be very courteous, efficient, and professional. As a DUI Lawyer, I have no reservations about Practicing in either of these places. In fact, I rather like the fact that the Courts run smoothly, and that my time there will be pleasant. It's just that I can't forget how much tougher things are for my Client there, rather than anywhere else, and in that sense, what happens to my Client, happens to me. After all, I am hired by the Client to make things better for them, and that's my sole concern. The fact that any one Court is more efficient, or will get me, the Lawyer, in and out faster than another, doesn't benefit the Client, and thus, is of little concern to me in the bigger picture.

All the other Oakland County Courts are much less strict than Bloomfield Hills and Rochester. It seems that the Courts at the southern end of the County (Ferndale, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Royal Oak, Southfield and Madison Heights) are a bit more lenient than those to the north (Troy, Bloomfield Hills and Rochester). Yet as exceptions to this broad generalization, the Court in Novi is a bit more "rigorous" than its southern peers, while the Pontiac District Court is rather down to earth, leaving the 47th District Court in Farmington Hills to split the bill, and be about as "neutral" as a Court can be. In Oakland County, "neutral" is a good thing.

Beyond at least considering a longer term of Probation than either Macomb or Wayne Counties, Oakland tends to pile on the conditions. Many of the more "burdensome" conditions of Probation one might now find in either Macomb or Wayne County began in Oakland, and then found their ways south and east. While the Oakland County Court systems often leads the way in terms of innovation and technology, they also tend to lead the way in being tough. If the reader has done any investigation prior to coming across this article, then I'm sure they've heard all about Oakland County already.

In Part 3 of this article, we'll conclude by examining what it really means to be "on Probation." We'll see how Probation is both a requirement to not do certain things, and a mandate to do others.

This article will shift the focus from affecting the outcome of the PSI process to the very outcome, itself. We'll look at what being "on Probation" really means, how the conditions and terms of Probation are decided, and how that is different from Court to Court. We'll cover this subject in 3 installments in order to really understand Probation, and to make sense it.

At its simplest, Probation is an alternative to Jail. A person is put on Probation with the understanding that they will follow the rules (whatever those rules might be) set out by the Judge, at Sentencing, or else get to Jail for Violating Probation. Beyond this rather simple instruction to look at the obvious, written instructions, we must also read "between the lines" in order to get a complete picture of what being on Probation really means.

Although it is an alternative to Jail, Probation can be handed out along with Jail. The maximum legal penalty in a 1st Offense DUI in Michigan is 93 days in Jail, a Fine of up to $500, plus Court costs. Let's look at a typical 1st Offense case as an example:

If the Dan the Driver gets a 1st Offense DUI, and the Judge sends him to Jail for 93 days, he or she cannot put Dan on Probation. Dan will have "maxed out" his Sentence, and therefore, upon his release, not be subject to any further punishment by the Court. The Judge can also elect to NOT send Dan to Jail, and put him on Probation for a year, or two, with the understanding that if he screws up anywhere along the way, he can be sent to Jail for any period of time up to the whole 93 days in Jail.

A less common, but perfectly legal option is to send Dan to Jail for some period less than the full 93 possible days, and put him on Probation, with the understanding that if he screws that up, he can be sent back to Jail to serve any part of the un-served 93 days. Thus, if Dan is sent to Jail for 21 days, and then stuck on Probation for a year, there are 72 un-served day of Jail that the Judge still has "in the bank" that he or she can hand out, if Dave messes up somehow.

For all of that, "Probation" usually means "no Jail."

The most desirable, although far less common kind of Probation is called "Non-Reporting." Not surprisingly, this form of Probation dispenses with the requirement that the person come in for any meetings with a Probation Officer. Non-Reporting Probation can range from what's called "write-in," meaning a person must send a periodic written report (usually, the same form they'd fill out if they actually reported in person) to their Probation Officer, to "call-in," meaning they must either call and speak with, or at least leave a voice mail message for their Probation Officer.

Sometimes, if a person does a really good job at their PSI, and the stars are otherwise in alignment, they can be placed on a term of Non-Reporting Probation that requires them to do nothing more than just stay out of trouble, and perhaps complete something Ordered by the Judge, without the need to have any contact with the Probation Department.

Whatever type of Probation may be granted, a person must fulfill their obligations to the Court, and Probation is a means to insure and monitor that they do that. Even in the most unstructured, least demanding form of Non-Reporting Probation, a Probation Officer will eventually run a person's Criminal and Driving Record to see if they have been Arrested or charged with a new Offense. Similarly, if the Judge has Ordered that a person complete or do something, verification that they have complied with any such mandate will be done by the Probation Department. If the person has done what they were supposed to have done, and has otherwise not gotten into any more trouble, they'll be successfully discharged from Probation.

If, for lack of a better term, they "screwed up" anywhere along the way, they'll be brought back before the Judge and charged with violating their Probation, which is know as a "Probation Violation."

Probation for a DUI is like any other kind of Probation, be it a probationary period for a new job, or the kind of probationary Driver's License a person gets from the state, to Probation for any other criminal offense. A person must not get in any trouble, meaning they are not to "screw up" anywhere during the specified period or term of Probation, and must often do, or complete certain other things during that time. If they do what they are supposed to do, and don't do anything wrong, then they get through the period of Probation, and all is well. If they have problems, well, they have problems...

In a DUI, or any Criminal case, for that matter, Probation in one Court can be very different than Probation in another. And while each Court is different, there is one generalization that holds true in every case: Oakland County is much tougher than either Macomb or Wayne. Because I confine my Practice to the Tri-County area of Metro Detroit, I am intimately familiar with the differences, from profound to subtle, between the three Counties. And for precisely that reason, I have little to no idea how things are done beyond Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties.

While Probation can be roughly described as an alternative to Jail, Probation itself is Ordered for a specific "term," meaning duration or length, and contains certain "conditions," meaning things a person must do, and others they must refrain from doing. While "Probation" begins as a result of the actual Sentencing, the specific conditions, or requirements of any such Probation can be traced back to an intermediate step in the whole DUI process, called the Pre-Sentence Investigation, or PSI, which occurs before the Sentencing

In various other blog articles, and on my website, I have pointed out that THE most important part of any DUI case is preparing for the whole Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) process. By Law, before a person is ever put on Probation, or not, or sent to Jail, or whatever, they must this PSI, which conducted by the Court's Probation Department. This "process" basically involves a Probation Officer gathering background and biographical information about, and, then interviewing the person, and finally, the administration of a written alcohol assessment test. This test is numerically scored, and how low or high a person scores upon it usually determines, more than any other single factor, what kind of Sentence they will get. I teach my Client how to avoid any unnecessary points on that test, and keep the score as low as it can be.

The end result of the whole PSI process is a formal, written Recommendation from the Probation Department to the Judge, advising the Judge exactly what kind of sentence, meaning what kind of Probationary conditions a person should get. Better Recommendations produce better Sentences. Therefore, a "better" Recommendation is the only kind worth having. It takes work to make this happen, but the alternative is that dreaded "Probation from Hell" that is all the worse when a person realizes that had they hired a better Lawyer and put in the time and effort to do better at this stage, things could have turned out much better.

Given that that Recommendation is pretty much the blueprint for what will happen to a person, I focus my efforts on making sure my Client is expertly prepared for this critical step. That begins right at the first appointment in my Office, which usually lasts about 2 hours, much of which is devoted to this whole subject, particularly the nuances of alcohol assessment testing. That focus on preparation continues with yet another conference with the Client scheduled as close as possible to the day of their actual PSI interview.

In Part 2 of this article, we'll pick up by seeing how a garden-variety DUI, like that of our aforementioned and imaginary "Dan the Driver" will play out in terms of the kind of Probation he'll likely get in Macomb, Wayne and Oakland Counties. Then, in part 3, we will move specifically into what being "on Probation" really means, and what a person can expect to be Ordered to do, and not do, as well.

In a few previous articles, I specifically examined how and why a person can win a License Appeal without being involved in AA. Rather than repeat the same thing here, this shorter article will focus more on the simple fact that a person can win License without AA, and not so much how or why that's the case.

I should point out that this isn't just my opinion, either. If a person is genuinely Sober, and I accept their Driver's License Restoration Appeal, I Guarantee that I will win their case the first time, or I will continue to Represent the them before the DAAD without further Legal Fee until they do win back their License. Thankfully, with a win rate of over 98%, I don't go have to go back a second time very often.

Driver's License Restoration Appeals are heard and decided by the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) Hearing Officers. All of my cases scheduled for a live, in-person Hearing at the DAAD's Office in Livonia, where there are 5 Hearing Officers before whom I have appeared countless times. There are 2 other Hearing Office Locations in Grand Rapids and Lansing, and numerousl remote locations that do a "video Hearing" over closed circuit TV.

It used to be the case that winning back a Michigan Driver's License without AA was almost impossible. I am told that there is still some of this bias left in the Grand Rapids and Lansing Hearing Offices; since I never go to either of those locations, I really have no first-hand knowledge about how they do things there. Instead, by having all of my cases heard in the same place, I just know what it takes to win when I handle a case. And more than half of the cases I win are for people not active in AA.

That said, most of those Clients not active in AA at the time I file their License Appeal do have some past AA attendance. While not necessary, even the shortest prior involvement with AA is helpful. The AA program, whether you love it, hate it, or just don't care about it, more or less created and provided the language of Recovery. Just about any and everything a person can learn about Recovery or Sobriety can trace its origins to AA.

And this understanding, which really must be the equivalent of accepting, to the point of internalizing, the notion that "I cannot drink again" really addresses the primary concern of the DAAD in a License Restoration case.

While the entire License Restoration process is governed by DAAD Rule 13, which sets out a number of requirements to win a License Appeal, the central and most important of those things is that a person must prove, by what is called "Clear and Convincing Evidence," that their alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control." In the real world, this means that a person must prove that they are a safe bet to never drink again.

Thus, if the most important question in a License Appeal is whether or not a person is, in fact, a safe bet to never drink again, then the best answer to that question is an unqualified "I know I can never drink again." Wherever a person came to learn and believe it, this understanding has its genesis in AA's first step.

The more enlightened view of Recovery has long ago accepted that a person can come to this realization, and sustain it, without being actively involved in AA. In the same way a person can most surely believe in God without participating in a formal, organized religion, a person can believe that the only way for them to control their alcohol problem is to not drink, and not need to go to AA to keep reminding themselves of that.

Unfortunately, I often hear, albeit second-hand, many misconceptions about the License Appeal process that have been repeated by members of AA. Perhaps in future installments, we'll examine more of them, but for today, the reader need only know that AA is not required to win a License Restoration Appeal. And beyond just saying it, I can, and do, Guarantee it.

To be clear, this necessary follow-up only applies to Michigan residents. Out-of-state residents do not win a Michigan Driver's License; they win a "Clearance" of the Michigan Hold on their Driving Record that allows them to obtain (or renew) a License in another state. Once they've won their first Appeal, they're done.

It's not quite so simple for Michigan residents. The Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) requires that anyone winning a Michigan License Appeal be monitored for at least one year before they can come back and request that they be allowed to remove the ignition interlock unit from their car and be awarded a Full License. I am often asked if there is any way around this. There is not; it is required by Law.

The Hearing Officers deciding these Appeals find some security in the idea that they can keep a Driver on a kind of leash. The reader may be surprised to learn how many people on the ignition interlock wind up blowing positive for alcohol. And I'm not talking about false readings, either; I mean true-blue, bona fide proof of drinking results. Fortunately, I don't see too much of that, as I try very hard to screen out anyone who is not really and truly Sober, and committed to remaining that way. By limiting my Representation to only those people who are Sober, I can also offer a first time win Guarantee in any case that I accept.

Yet winning the first time does not, in any way, guarantee winning the second Appeal for Full Driving Privileges and removal of the ignition interlock. This does seem rather counter-intuitive; after all, if a person has had no problems for a year, and has already won their first License Appeal, what more could the state want?

As it turns out, the state wants a lot.

After that first year is up, and a person becomes eligible to file for removal of the ignition interlock and Full Driving Privileges, they must go through the entire License Appeal process all over again. The ONLY difference is that they must also bring a "final report" from the interlock company detailing how well (or not) they did with the breath-testing unit in their vehicle. We'll come back to this later.

• Undergo a complete and new Substance Abuse Evaluation, complete with urine test
  
• Get new, updated Letters of Support
  
• Get a "Final Report"
  
• Request a Hearing, and
  
• Attend (and win) their Hearing.

This is important. Recently, I saw a case where a person had the interlock installed on his car, and driven with it, and without incident, for a full year. Yet somehow, due to a purely Secretary of State screw-up, their actual, physical Restricted License wasn't issued (meaning printed) until a few months thereafter. Their second time around Appeal could not move forward because, even though the Driver had the interlock installed in his car, even though he used it for a whole year without a problem, and even though no one told him any differently, the clock for the required year did not start to officially run until the paper Restricted License was printed several months later.

Although this error was completely the state's fault, it didn't change the fact that, by Law, the person was required to have driven for at least 12 months on the ignition interlock and with a valid Restricted License, which did not exist for the first several months because someone at the Secretary of State failed to hit the "print" button.

Once their eligibility has been confirmed, the Client and I begin with that same 3-hour meeting to prepare them to undergo the Substance Abuse Evaluation. Remember, the Substance Abuse Evaluation is the very foundation of a License Appeal. To insure a win so that my Client can remove the ignition interlock and have a full License, I carefully prepare for, manage and oversee each and every step in the License Appeal process.

The "Final Report" is a certified document printed and prepared by the interlock company, upon a person's request, after that have driven with the unit in their car for at least 12 months. The Final Report provides a summary overview of the person's performance on the interlock unit, and lists and specifies any kind of violation, major or minor, along with the reason for such violation, be it a positive BAC or a start up or rolling retest failure. Major violations result in a person having their License immediately Suspended and being summoned to appear before the DAAD as soon as they occur. If that didn't happen during the year, then it won't be suddenly showing up on the Final Report.

If a person takes care of the regular calibration and maintenance of the unit, and pays the cost according to schedule, this document is generally in their hands within days of the request.

There are some things that can go wrong with these Appeals. I suspect that some of the common mistakes or oversights which cause these "second time around" Appeals to lose most often result from the misconception that they are easier to win the first time around, or that simply not having had any ignition interlock problems somehow becomes the most important focal point of any such case, and that having a clean interlock Record makes winning a full License a "shoe-in."

That's not the case. If it were, I'd quickly cut back the time I spend with my Client's preparing for the Substance Abuse Evaluation. As it turns out, for these "Full License," second time around Appeals, I only charge my previous Clients 2/3 of the Fee they paid me for their first win. I wouldn't put the same work in for less money unless I really believed it was necessary.

But it is necessary. When a person goes before the DAAD, their case is randomly assigned to a Hearing Officer, meaning that, if they had their first Hearing in Livonia, there is only a 1 in 5 chance that they'll get the same Hearing Officer again. Since I have all of my Hearings scheduled in Livonia, this means that, if a person's first case was heard anywhere else, they will definitely have be meeting a Hearing Officer they've never seen before.

It takes careful preparation and conscientious management to make sure a person wins an Appeal for a Full License after spending a year on a Restricted License with the ignition interlock. This is hardly the time to miss an important detail.

I make sure my Clients win.

Yet for all of that, I maintain the same attitude about second time, "full" Appeals that I do when anyone wants to try to win back their License the first time, on their own: I say, go for it. If you lose, you can try again in a year. I'll still be here, and if you need me, call me then. At least we can get it right the second, second-time around.

However, while Sobriety is a "first requirement" in a License Appeal case, it is, by itself, far from enough to win. There is much more to it than that.

Within the body of the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog, I have covered the steps in a License Restoration case. Many of those articles involve multiple installments. This article will be far more summary in nature, and will address the misconception that all you need to win a License Appeal is to prove Sobriety.

In fact, a fairly common question I'm asked is "how do you prove Sobriety?" That very question demonstrates that the way one wins a License Appeal is far from obvious, and certainly not as simple as losing the privilege to drive in the first place.

Being Sober is a first requirement in a License Appeal in the same way that having a racket is a first requirement to play tennis. Having a racket doesn't mean you know anything about playing the game, other than you have to hit the ball. As it turns out, I don't know the first thing about tennis, never took lessons, and could not play the game for the life of me. I do have a racket, though, which I used to paddle the ball back and forth off of a brick wall when I was younger. I am about as ready to play tennis with a good, veteran player as someone who is "Sober" is ready to undertake a Driver's License Reinstatement case before a Hearing Officer who knows the many rules and requirements of these Appeals like the back of his or her hand.

In order to Restore a Michigan Driver's License, or to win a "Clearance," a person must be able to make all the proofs necessary under DAAD Rule 13, which is the Law that controls and governs these Appeals. Reduced to its most basic elements, Rule 13 requires that a Hearing Officer Deny a License Appeal unless the person seeking Restoration proves, by what's called "Clear and Convincing Evidence," two main things:

1. That their alcohol problem is under control, and,
2. That their alcohol problem is likely to remain under control.

Then there are those who are just dead-set on trying it on their own. It might surprise the reader to learn that I never try and persuade such people from representing themselves. Given that, in 2010, for example, 75% of all Administrative License Appeals were Denied by the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), I simply say "go for it - and then call me next year."

The only problem with trying to "do it right" next year, after they lose the first time, is that the errors caused in the first "do-it-yourself" Appeal have to be fixed the following year. And there will be errors in such cases. A person loses a Michigan Driver's License Restoration case because of errors; because thing were done improperly.

There are a lot of things to do in a License Appeal. Without elaboration, here are the general steps involved in a Michigan Drivers' License Restoration Appeal:

1. Determining eligibility for a License Restoration or Clearance
   
2. Preparing (this takes 3 hours in my Office) for the Substance Abuse Evaluation
   
3. Beginning work on the Letters of Support
   
4. Undergoing the Substance Abuse Evaluation
   
5. Editing and completing the Letters of Support
   
6. Reviewing the completed Substance Abuse Evaluation for quality
   
7. Finalizing the Letters of Support
   
8. Filing the whole package with Lansing
   
9. Determining the identity of the Hearing Officer deciding the case
   
10. Preparing for the Hearing before THAT Hearing Officer, and finally
    
11. Attending and managing the Hearing.

If anyone reading this doesn't see that as clearly as me, then perhaps it would be wise to ask if stumbling through this on your own is a good idea. As I noted, however, if someone is inclined to wing it, go right ahead...

Then, call me next year.

Unfortunately, many (perhaps too many) Lawyers figure they can just read Rule 13, figure everything out, and go ahead and plow through a License Restoration.

This frequently results in another "call me next year" situation.

Doing a License Appeal correctly involves lots of knowledge gained through experience. Some of that knowledge was acquired the hard way; learning from mistakes. After over 20 years of handling License Appeals, I think it's safe to say I've made all those "learning experience" mistakes years ago. I'm confident enough in experience, knowledge and skill to offer my first-time win Guarantee.

Yet the degree of experience to which I refer is not a product of simply having "done" some License Appeals. It comes from having concentrated in them. If the reader takes the time to look at this blog and my website, they'll see that License Restorations are the bread and butter of what I do as a Lawyer. It's the work in which I engage most of the day, every day. It's the kind of experience that comes from having handled about 120 License Restoration Appeals in 2011, and having maintained a first time win rate of over 98%.

The ability to win a License Appeal begins with Sobriety. If a person doesn't have that, then they have no chance of winning. Proving, by Clear and Convincing Evidence, that their alcohol problem is under control, and likely to remain under control cannot happen until they are Sober. However, there's a lot more to a License Restoration Appeal than just proving Sobriety. Even beginning to contemplate an answer to the rather frequently asked question, "how do you prove Sobriety" underscores the fact that there is much more to this than most people will ever know.

In the course of the actual License Hearing, a person will be asked about their use of any prescription medications, past or present. I can only theorize, but I think when asked about this, some people feel they can demonstrate the strength of their Sobriety by admitting to having used something like the painkiller Vicodin in the past without having suffered any adverse consequences, like a relapse.

Unfortunately, the Hearing Officer won't see it that way.

Instead, he or she will see a person supposedly in Recovery who failed to tell their treatment provider about their alcohol problem. The Hearing Officer will not view this as a success, but rather a big potential problem that, fortunately, didn't come to pass.

Beyond a problem that didn't occur, the Hearing Officer will become concerned about the person's lack of understanding of the need to abstain from any and all potentially addictive, or mind and/or mood altering drugs. They'll perceive the person as a risk. Remember, the most important issue before any Hearing Officer in a multiple DUI License Appeal is that the person's alcohol or substance abuse problem is likely to remain under control. Even if a person has been Sober for years, a few spoonfuls of Codeine or a few Vicodin pills can trigger a relapse. It doesn't necessarily have to be a relapse with alcohol, either. A person Recovering from an alcohol problem can easily be lulled into a relapse with a different substance.

Up to this point, we have not examined the role that medications for mental health issues play in a Michigan License Restoration case.

Anxiety disorders, ADD and ADHD problems as well as bipolar issues, to name a few, are rather common across the population, and this is no less the case with people in Recovery. However, some estimate that as many as 60% of all people with bipolar disorder will suffer from some kind of addiction problem. This is often called a "dual diagnosis." Examination of this in any detail would require a separate article, and probably one like this, with multiple installments. For our purposes, it is only necessary to note that the DAAD looks beyond the use of medicines to treat mental health issues, focusing its concern on the underlying issue, as well, and the potential it presents as a risk for a person's "alcohol or substance abuse problems...to remain under control."

In my Practice, I believe it is critical to thoroughly examine and explore these issues with my Client BEFORE he or she ever undergoes the Substance Abuse Evaluation.

The cost of not carefully dealing with mental health issues before the Substance Abuse Evaluation is that a person leaves how such issues will be perceived as impacting (or not) their License Appeal completely to chance. This means that the conclusions reached within the Evaluation will come as surprise, and not as a planned-for result.

I don't like surprises, except on my birthday. Surprises are seldom pleasant. And that's a description of exactly how NOT to handle a License Appeal.

In some cases, the risks associated with using "risky" medicines, and the underlying conditions those medications treat (like anxiety), can themselves can trigger further inquiries about a person's "ability and motivation to drive safely, and within the law." We'll come back to this in a few paragraphs.

I've had people who have made the decision to stop medicating their problems and deal with them in other ways, such as through therapy. Some people just want to break free of the reliance (NOT dependence) on medication to feel normal, and find some other way to get through life.

The wisdom of such decisions falls far outside my field expertise, except that, in a Michigan License Appeal, it's one less obstacle to getting back on the road that I have to deal with.

Assuming the reader has kept pace with me through the preceding installments of this article, it might prove helpful here to take a step back and look at how this subject fits into the bigger picture. In a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal, there are several legal issues that a person must address, and satisfy by "Clear and Convincing Evidence." Normally, these boil down to proving that a person's alcohol (or substance abuse) problem is under control, and, more importantly, that their alcohol (or substance abuse) problem is likely to remain under control.

In a case involving more pronounced anxiety or bipolar type issues, a third Legal issue is triggered under DAAD Rules.pdf, the rule that governs Michigan License Restoration Appeals. This sub rule requires that the person prove (again, by clear and convincing evidence) that he or she "has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the Law." While I identify this issue on my website as the "seldom occurring issue," when it does arise, it most often does so in the context of a person having a rather disastrous (as in accident-loaded) Driving Record, or having been caught driving after their License has been Revoked. Nevertheless, the state is concerned about a person's overall ability to be a safe driver, and the Hearing Officer wouldn't be doing his or her job if there were unresolved doubts or concerns about a person getting behind the wheel. Remember, if this issue arises at all, the person Appealing must not just prove their ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law to the Hearing Officer's satisfaction, but rather by the more objective "Clear and Convincing Evidence" standard. Accordingly, an unresolved doubt falls short of proving anything by clear and convincing evidence.

No matter what medical and/or mental health issues arise in any License Appeal, the biggest issue, and the one that dominates all others, is whether a person can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are a safe bet to never drink again. Anything that impacts this is a problem.

I have, I think, sufficiently reiterated that the use, either past or present, of potentially addictive mind and/or mood altering medication is something that must be worked around in a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal. To be fair, there are circumstances that might just be too difficult to overcome. I haven't seen those yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

No matter what the facts and circumstances of anyone's particular case, there will be a lot of work to do. Some cases are easier than others. Anyone wanting to get back on the road will have to be willing to put in the time and effort and do that work. I certainly don't charge a bargain Fee for my expertise, but I have always said that there are no shortcuts to doing a License Restoration the right way. These cases take a lot of commitment and work from both the Client and me. Anyone who sees this process as something at which you can simply throw money, no matter how much money they have and are willing to throw at it, will never be a Client of mine, and will likely never win their License back, either.

Whatever else, anyone who uses, or has used any kind of potentially addictive or mind and/or mood altering medication must understand that such use complicates their License Appeal, and needs to make sure they have the proper expert guidance to navigate the path to getting their License back.

Reduced to its most basic level, alcoholism and drug addiction are really an addiction to getting a buzz. Alcoholics and addicts are hooked, in large part, on changing the way they feel. After a while, being "sober" is not the norm, or at least not the desired norm. Changing one's consciousness can become a psychological and/or physiological habit in some people, but not in others.

It is interesting that every Substance Abuse Counselor in the world considers this basic stuff, yet many Physicians aren't particularly well versed in it. Doctors are trained to cure diseases, treat illness and fix injuries. It is actually a somewhat rare medical specialty (not surprisingly called addiction medicine) that treats alcoholism and addiction. Other than that, about the only professional contact most Doctors have with alcoholism and addiction is when someone shows up in the ER suffering any of the many consequences of such abuse, from accidents to liver failure to overdose. And the best (and really only) advice they can give is for the person to stop and get some help. That help comes from someone who treats alcohol and substance abuse issues. With the exception of those few Doctors specializing in addiction medicine, this will almost always be a Substance Abuse Counselor.

Because they spend their time fixing injured people, and helping sick people get well, many, if not most, Physicians don't have any detailed knowledge of the proper treatment protocol for the diseases of alcoholism and addiction, and how cross-addiction and substitution are inherent risks in the addiction AND Recovery process. Besides, Doctors are usually very busy; they have limited time with each patient. Come in with a broken leg, and you'll have it set and get discharged with instructions and a prescription for painkillers.

This is a complication. This is actually a complication within other complications...

It seems that the more we analyze or talk about this, the farther reality moves away from theory...

Life would be great if Recovery was absolute, and that learning about one's Recovery and Sobriety were as easy and predictable as learning how to manage one's diabetes. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work. Yet even among those who do Recover from an alcohol or substance abuse problem, in most cases, once they learn enough to just not drink anymore, they will (with good reason,) leave it there. They don't feel an overwhelming need to become an expert on Sobriety beyond just stopping the destructive cycle of drinking. And in many cases, that's just fine.

Doctors know that alcohol and drug abuse are unhealthy. And while they frequently have to treat the consequences of such abuse, only a rare few specialize in treating the disease that gives rise to those consequences. Instead, they leave that process to those specific treatment protocols supervised by other highly trained professionals (i.e., Substance Abuse Counselors) who make their entire in the Recovery field.

This means that many people who have an alcohol problem and have been able to successfully quit drinking for a couple of years may not understand (to whatever extent) that they cannot use potentially addictive or mind and/or mood altering medication unless there is no suitable medical alternative.

There are, of course, cases where the use of potentially addictive or mind and/or mood altering medications IS necessary. A person, for example, who undergoes open-heart surgery and who has their chest sawed open will simply not get by, at least right after the surgery, with anything less than some serious (e.g., potentially addictive) painkillers. Those situations are determined on a case-by-case basis. Even when necessary, however, such use must be closely monitored by both the person in Recovery and their treating professionals.
In many cases, because something is a medical emergency, and there is little time for discussion, this means that a person will be unlikely to tell their treating Physician about their alcoholism and subsequent Recovery, and equally unlikely to ask for a "safe"," meaning non-addictive or non-mind an/or mood altering medication. In other cases, a person may just forget, or be embarrassed to dredge up a past that they don't feel is reflective of who they've grown to be.

Then the Doctor, for his or her part, has NO reason to take any alcoholism into account as they treat the patient, because they were NEVER told of it.

Worse yet, in many cases, even if a Doctor IS told about a person's alcoholism, the Doctor will just send them out with a prescription for a limited amount of medication, and/or no refills.

This is not a knock against Doctors, either. You can "ditto" this for Dentists and Podiatrists. How many people want to tell their Dentist that they're a Recovering alcoholic? Until a dental emergency, how is that even relevant?

Yet we can easily imagine a situation where a person goes into the Dentist with a toothache, and leaves with an extraction, a supply of gauze, and a 'script for Vicodin.

Within my Criminal Practice, I have handled loads of cases involving Prescription drugs like Vicodin, ranging from Possession to Fraudulent Prescription charges, all of which began with a legitimate prescription that subsequently evolved into a dependence on the medication, or triggered a relapse in someone who was in recovery from an alcohol or drug problem. This happens all the time, and is NOT exceptional.

Now, let's bring this home, to a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal. To do that, we've got to rewind again....

The most important issue, or thing that needs to be proven (by "Clear and Convincing Evidence," no less) in a Restoration Appeal is that the person's "alcohol or substance abuse problems...are under control, and likely to remain under control." In numerous other articles, I have shown how that really means that a person must show that they are a safe bet to never drink (or use, or get high, or drunk, or buzzed, or whatever) again. They must prove, by Clear and Convincing Evidence, that they are likely to remain completely clean and Sober for the rest of their days.

The state (and every Substance Abuse Counselor in the world) views that as being SERIOUSLY put at risk if a person uses any medication which has the potential to be addictive, or can otherwise alter their mind and/or mood.

Therefore, when a person files a License Appeal, and comes in and makes proof and gives testimony about how dramatically their life has changed since they quit drinking, and how Sobriety has been the best thing that's ever happened to them, and how they've accomplished so much as a result of becoming alcohol-free, all that "Sobriety" talk is rendered questionable, at best, when the person also admits to something like taking Xanax for anxiety, or Vicodin for pain. Remember, if a person spends enough time in Counseling, or enough time at AA, they will learn they should not be using these medications unless there is no suitable medical alternative.

Accordingly, even though their abstinence from alcohol thus far may be well-established, putting them back on the road under the assumption that they'll forever remain Sober is not a "likely" proposition, at least as far as the state is concerned.

In a very real way, the state concludes that the person is not sufficiently grounded in Recovery. Stories like this are not uncommon when I meet a Client who has previously tried a License Appeal and lost, either winging it on their own, or going in with some Lawyer who didn't know better, but obviously should have.

The state, for its part, learns about a person's prescription drug use in one of several ways. Sometimes, these medications show up in the urine test that is a required part of every Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal. Other times, use of potentially addictive, or mind and/or mood altering medications, whether current, or in the distant, or even recent past, is revealed in the actual Substance Abuse Evaluation process. In the worst-case scenario, such prescription drug use is first revealed at the actual Hearing, much to the dismay of the Lawyer, and the rather unpleasant surprise of the Hearing Officer.

This is an area that MUST be examined by and with the Lawyer long before a person ever walks in to have their Substance Abuse Evaluation completed or a urine sample provided. As a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, I MUST be the first person in the Driver's License Restoration process to learn about this, so I can plan accordingly. If the use of any of these medications was not disclosed to and evaluated by the Lawyer first, then one can correctly say the case is not being handled properly. Period. A Lawyer who learns about his or her Client's prescription medication use after, and not before, the Substance Abuse Evaluation has been completed has screwed up. It's that simple.

In Part 3 of this article, we'll shift our focus to how this potentially problematic prescription drug use is discovered, and we'll see how it is my role, as the License Restoration Attorney, to resolve any potential problems before they become actual problems.

I need to be clear about something right up front; there's a significant part of this topic that is intimately wrapped up with the strategies I use to win Restoration Appeals. As much as I'm going to pull the curtain back on this topic, like a magician talking about his show, I'm not going to reveal my "trade secrets." The fact of the matter is, much of what I know about properly handling License Restorations accounts for why I win as much as I do, and why I offer a first-time win Guarantee. This separates me from the pack of Lawyers who claim to "do" License Appeals, or who buy web site domain names with the words "license restoration" in the title. None of these operations, as far as I know, (whatever Fee they may charge), offers a Guarantee like I do.

Anyone who is truly in "Recovery" fundamentally understands that they cannot use any kind of potentially addictive, mind and/or mood-altering substance unless there is no medically suitable alternative. We're not talking blood pressure medication, or thyroid medication, or anything like that; we're talking about things like tranquilizers, painkillers, and psychotropic medications upon which people can become hooked.

I realize that there are some people who've been able to quit drinking (often without the help of AA or any kind of long-term treatment) that don't know this. Within the context of winning a License Appeal, however, they need to know it, even if I'm the one to teach them. Unfortunately, some approaches to Recovery and Sobriety fail to recognize that certain people are capable of overcoming a drinking problem without lifetime AA involvement or anything more than a commitment to never drink again, and a fundamental understanding that they cannot.

Beyond that, in the real world, there are people who have successfully quit drinking and that safely manage to use medication that would otherwise be considered potentially addictive or mind and/or mood altering without any problems.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the Michigan Secretary of State, through its Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), will absolutely DENY an Appeal if someone tests positive for, or otherwise admits to using any such medication without proper explanation. As we continue our analysis, we'll more fully explore the meaning and significance of testing positive for any of these medications, and what a "proper explanation" for their use really means.

1. Those who understand that they cannot use such medications unless it is medically necessary and there is no suitable alternative, and
   
2. Those who don't know this, or fully understand it.

Time then, for a refresher course....

Let's rewind all the way back to having an alcohol problem. Being a problem drinker; being alcoholic. At some point, a person who has crossed the line from being a "normal" drinker whose use of alcohol does not create problems in their life to someone whose use of alcohol can (and sometimes does) lead to damage that need repairing, recognizes that the only way to avoid creating any more damage is to not drink; not at all, and not ever.

This fundamental understanding is really the cornerstone of Recovery from an alcohol problem.

Some people kind of understand this, but cannot fully accept it. These are part of the larger group of people destined to struggle with an alcohol problem for life. Think back to those people who were the "big drinkers" back in high school, or the "old drunks" the reader might remember from his or her youth. What happened to those people? In most cases, nothing happened. They are as they were. The big drinkers from high school became big drinkers as adults, racking up divorces, DUI's and otherwise doing what they've always done. Those "old drunks" from years ago either died as "old drunks," or decayed into pretty sad shape.

Others fight with the idea that they must completely quit drinking. They fight it hard. They try to limit or otherwise manage their drinking, but sooner or later (usually later), they surrender to the reality that they only way to completely control what has grown into a drinking problem is to not drink. That struggle is called denial, but the eventual acceptance of the need to "put the plug in the jug" leads to actual Recovery.

However long or short the incubation period the seed for Sobriety must undergo, it either sprouts, or not. And while a bit off-topic, the harsh reality of the situation is that only an elite minority of people ever manage to get over an alcohol problem. Thus, most people who are caught up in this struggle will not win. Within the context of a potentially successful License Appeal, however, only those who have actually won this battle need apply.

In some of my other blog articles, I talk about how and why Sobriety is a first requirement in a License Appeal. There is no need to repeat all that here; the preceding links will take the reader to the referenced articles, should they want any further discussion of Sobriety as a requirement in a License Restoration (or Reinstatement) Appeal. The point is that anyone really ready to move forward with a Michigan Driver's License Restoration proceeding will have accepted, within the core of their being, that they cannot ever drink again.

People who have or at least had attended AA for enough time to really talk about the steps, and spend enough time examining the finer nuances of the first step, come away with an understanding that alcoholism is addiction; alcoholics are addicts whose drug of choice is alcohol. As such, alcoholics and/or addicts (we can use the terms interchangeably here) are forever at risk for cross-addiction, and can easily get hung up on using a substitute substance instead of their drug of choice.

At its most basic, this means that a person who has stopped drinking and maintained that abstinence for a couple of years can be knocked "off the wagon," so to speak, if their Doctor gives them a cough medicine with codeine, and they unwittingly take it, and like the relaxing feeling the medicine produces.

Notice that, in the scenario above, the person does nothing wrong to put themselves at risk to "fall off the wagon." This whole issue of "medication" in a License Appeal begins with an otherwise legitimate need.

In Part 2 of this article, we'll continue our examination of the potentially dangerous role of prescription medication in a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal. We will pick up with the role Doctors do and do not play in this situation.

This uncharacteristically short article will examine "eligibility" to file a License Appeal, but not so much as an analysis of the rules affecting when a person can proceed, but rather how and why they should get a copy of their Michigan Driving Record in order for me to determine and verify that they are, in fact, eligible.

To be clear, there are just some cases so cut and dried that I don't need to review a person's Driving Record to know they're good to go. Here's where a review of the rules and consequences of multiple DUI's is helpful. The previous link will take the reader to the more detailed subsection of my website. Here, we can summarize as follows:

Two (2) DUI convictions within seven (7) years = 1-year Revocation

Three (3) DUI convictions within ten (10) years = 5-year Revocation

When someone calls, however, and has more tha 2 DUI's, and isn't clear on the dates, or they've been caught Driving after they've had their License Revoked, or has a combination of DUI's from more than 1 state, then it's best if I verify their eligibility by reviewing their Driving Record. And getting that Record is easier than ever...

The only downside to being able to walk into a Secretary of State Office and get a Record for $7 affects those who live outside of Michigan. They'll have to order a Driving Record, and won't be able to obtain it instantly. Big deal. Chances are, they've waited longer than their first eligibility date anyway, so what's another few days? Remember, Driver's License Restoration is all about doing things the right way. There are no shortcuts.

Part and parcel of my License Restoration Practice is that I Guarantee that I will win any Appeal I accept the first time around. If I do not, then I will continue to represent the Client before the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) without further Legal Fee. In order to stand behind my Guarantee, I first have to make sure that a Client is legally eligible to proceed, and the best way for me to do that is to review their Driving Record. I do that for free. After speaking with a person I will accept a Record for review via fax (fax # 586-465-5966) or email (jrandalaw@gmail.com), or any other way a potential Client can get it to me. I simply ask that the person provide contact information on the Record so I can get back with them.

Once I have determined that a person is legally eligible to file a License Appeal, I then need to make sure that they are really and truly Sober. If they are both eligible, and Sober, then we can begin the process of getting them back on the road. In the Driver' s License Restoration section of this blog, I have tons (this is the 117th) of highly detailed, informational articles examining every aspect of License Appeals. Anyone interested in hiring me and being Guaranteed a win should take the time to explore this section and learn as much or as little as they'd to like about the Winning back their Driver's License. Of course, when they're really serious, they should pick up the phone and call my Office 586-228-6523 in order to ask any questions they might have, and to make arrangements for an appointment to get started.