Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In part 2 of this article, we examined some of the reasons that an initial, usually "do-it-yourself" License Appeal is lost. In this third and final part, we'll conclude our discussion with a review of some of the more serious errors that can occur, and how they are fixed in order to win the next Appeal.

Whatever the reason or reasons for a loss, they cannot just be overlooked next year. They must be addressed, and fixed.

I mentioned earlier that the kinds of things that can result in a denial range from the easily fixable to the catastrophic. The examples above (in part 2) would be considered rather easily fixable. What would be catastrophic?

In plenty of my other articles, I have pointed out that the Substance Abuse Evaluation itself is the very foundation of an Appeal. While it can never win an Appeal on its own, it can absolutely be the cause of one that's lost. In order to help a case, and not hurt it, the Substance Abuse Evaluation must really have 2 essential qualities:

1. It must be "legally adequate" in the eyes of the DAAD, and

2. It must be "favorable" for the person filing the Appeal.

Those qualities are explained thoroughly in my articles about the Substance Abuse Evaluation. Here, we're looking for an example of a catastrophic error in a "do-it-yourself" Appeal. So we're clear, this kind of error should never happen when a person has a real, bona-fide License Restoration Lawyer handling their Appeal. In fact, it's precisely this kind of error that I avoid for my Clients.

Let's assume a person has submitted a Substance Abuse Evaluation that was "legally adequate," or, in the DAAD's view, "sufficient." Let's also assume that the Evaluator notes in the Comments section that the person should involve themselves in some kind of Recovery support, such as AA or Counseling. Let's further assume that are not actively involved in that kind of support at the time of their Hearing.

Of course, they'll lose their Appeal. That's a given. The Hearing Officer will note that the Evaluator felt that such support was important to the person's Recovery, but the person was not so involved at the time of their Hearing.

Yet again: Game over.

But what should they do for next year's Appeal? Do they now start going to AA? What if they testified that they didn't like AA, or found it wasn't for them? How do they address this problem next year, and rectify any inconsistency between their prior testimony and the advice of the Evaluator?

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 3" »

In part 1 of this article, we began outlining how the biggest obstacle to winning a License Appeal after an initial loss is addressing and fixing the problems that cause the loss. Now we'll move onto a more detailed discussion of some of those things, focusing on the less severe problems first, and getting into more serious, or catastrophic problems in part 3.

If the reason or reasons for the loss are significant, however, things are different than if they were not that bad.

In a recent article, I noted that I NEVER call witnesses in my cases. The long and short of that article was that anything a witness can say live can be included in a Letter of Support. Of course, knowing what should specifically be in those letters, and what is a waste of space (like how the person has suffered without a License, how they've learned their lesson and will treasure the ability to drive again, what a good and different person they are, or how their employment opportunities will be so much better if they could drive) is the result of considerable experience practicing before the DAAD. Anyway, many less-experienced Lawyers or "do-it-yourselfers" drag witnesses to the Hearing in the hopes that their testimony will help their case.

Quite often, it does not. As I noted in that witness article, Letters of Support cannot be cross-examined, do not get nervous, and certainly don't make mistakes in testifying, because Letters don't testify. Witnesses do all of the above, even if unintentionally.

As I sit across the conference table from someone who is hiring me to handle their second try at getting back on the road, and I read the Order denying their first Appeal, I often find inconsistencies between the testimony of various witnesses, or between what the witness says and what the person Appealing said earlier. To be clear, witnesses are kept outside of the Hearing Room while the person testifies, so they have no clue what was said. They are called in afterward, having no idea of what has transpired.

Let's say Dan the Driver has testified that he has been sober for 2 years. In response to the Hearing Officer's questions, Dan admits that he had a back injury at work about 9 months ago, and had a prescription for Vicodin, which he used then, but discontinued when his condition improved. Okay, not the best situation, but in and of itself, not the end of the world.

Dan lives at home with his parents (or it could be that he lives with his girlfriend) and either mom or the girlfriend are called in to testify. Even with a Lawyer asking the first questions, there will come a point when the Hearing Officer has an opportunity to question the witness, and be sure, they will.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 2" »

In the last series of License Restoration articles, I provided a rather candid look, from my perspective as a Driver's License Restoration Appeals Lawyer, at why I'd rather deal with someone who has tried a License Appeal on their own, and lost, instead of someone who isn't quite sure if they need or even want a Lawyer, and needs to be convinced of that. I noted that to anyone thinking about doing this on their own, I absolutely say "go for it." I then pointed out that a pretty substantial part of my practice involves handling the subsequent Appeal for those who have tried on their own, and lost. And given that the overwhelming majority of those "do-it-yourself" Appeals do lose, it's just easier to deal with them as they gear up for the second round, rather than have to explain all of this over and over again.

This article will focus on the major drawback to that "do-it-yourself" approach. There are plenty of drawbacks, to be sure, to the self-represented Appeal, and perhaps the most obvious amongst them is the overwhelming likelihood of losing, and having to wait another year to try again. I think I've covered that well enough, even if indirectly, in the previous pair of articles. While losing the Appeal is perhaps the most easily identifiable drawback, it is not the biggest.

The biggest drawback to the "do-it-yourself" License Appeal is that whatever caused it to fail the first time will have to be addressed and fixed the second time around.

This can mean anything. And that's not imprecise language, that's rather specific. The range of problems that can cause a License Appeal to fail, especially where it's done without the oversight of an experienced License Restoration Attorney, can include anything from small, easily fixable inconsistencies or problems, to huge, catastrophic deficiencies that cannot be fully rectified even within the 1-year between Appeals waiting period.

If the reader has, in fact, tried a License Appeal before (either on their own, or, perhaps, with a Lawyer whose expertise in this area was merely that he or she "does" License Appeals, instead of being someone who concentrates in this rather niche area of the Law) and lost, then they already know how that loss is communicated. Anyone who has not been down that road, however, may not understand this part of the process. Let's clarify:

When a person files an Appeal for Restoration of Driving Privileges, a Written Decision is eventually issued. This is technically called an "Order." Whenever a person loses their Appeal, the Hearing Officer who denied it must write up the very specific reasons why the Appeal was denied. When I say "very specific," I mean that every single reason why an Appeal loses must be noted in detail. This is not only done to advise the person who filed the Appeal of what was deficient, or wrong, about their case, but so that any subsequent Court Appeal of that ruling will be sustained on Appeal. This requires even more explanation.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 1" »