Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

As a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer who has published over 120 articles on just about every imaginable aspect of the License Appeal process, I have certainly done my part to emphasize that Sobriety is a first and necessary requirement in order to win Reinstatement of a Michigan Driver's License, or the Clearance of a Michigan "Hold" on someone's Driving Record for those whose License has been Revoked for multiple DUI's.

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.

Proving the second issue is the more difficult task, as it essentially requires the Hearing Officer to be convinced that a person is a safe bet to never drink again.

Continue reading "There is a lot more to a Michigan Driver's License Restotation Appeal than just Being Sober" »

In my previous blog article, I addressed the myth that a person can never win a License Restoration Appeal the first time. I pointed out that I GUARANTEE that I'll win any Appeal I take the first time around. In this article, I want to continue with another installment of shorter length (this from a guy whose average piece runs about 4 pages) and clarify that, almost without exception, a person cannot win a License Appeal if they are still on Probation, and absolutely will lose any such case if they are on Parole.

On several recent occasions, my Office has received calls from people who have outright disagreed with this, and said "another Lawyer told me that didn't matter." Because I have more than enough License Appeal cases to keep me busy, I have no desire to argue with these callers. I feel obligated to inform them, however, that the Case Law is clear on that point. I also remind them that I offer a "Win" Guarantee, and challenge them to get one from whoever gave them the incorrect advice about being able to win a License Restoration Appeal while still on Probation, or Parole.

As I noted, I have enough License cases booked into the future to keep me busy. Yet I am, after all, in business to make money. I have no reason to send a person and their money to another Law Office to pay for the services I provide. But I will not accept someone's money for something I know to be legally impossible.

And winning back your License while on Probation, except in extraordinarily limited circumstances, is not Legally possible. Parolees will have to wait until after their Parole has ended.

I have read the opinions of the few other Lawyers on this topic, and at least those who have taken the time to write about it clearly understand that being on Probation or Parole precludes winning a License Appeal.

And while I agree that the Michigan Court of Appeals decision (linked above) that upheld this ruling by the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) is unfair, the Law is now clear, and unfair or not, it is what it is.

And it is what it is because several years ago, a Hearing Officer with the DAAD, the bureau that decides License Restoration Appeals, ruled that if a person is on Probation, or Parole, they cannot prove that any period of abstinence from alcohol is truly voluntary, because a standard condition of Probation or Parole that they not consume alcohol, very often back up with either regular, or at least random testing. The DAAD determined that such a person is "living in a controlled environment."

Continue reading "You Must be Finished With Probation or Parole to Win a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Case" »

As a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, a significant part of my job is explaining the License Restoration process to Clients and callers alike. In that regard, I often have to address misconceptions and myths about License Appeals. In this article, I will examine and hopefully dispel the longstanding myth that "you cannot win your License back the first time." To begin, I should point out that not only is that notion dead wrong, but that I make most of my income winning License Restoration Appeals the first time, and I back that up with a Guarantee.

Curiously, I am most often confronted with this misconception by the most unlikely of sources; People who are involved in AA. This is really ironic because, of all the people for whom I could rather easily win a License Appeal the first time, those who are really and truly Sober, and actually sit at the tables, are at front of the class. In fact, the inspiration for this article was a recent meeting with a new Client who had been referred to me and wasn't even aware of this blog. Let's examine her story a bit...

This Client was given a very enthusiastic referral to my Office by someone for whom, I had, as usual, won a License Appeal the first time. She had already seen a few other Lawyers, and figured that I'd just be another of the bunch. Before beginning her quest to get back on the road, she had repeatedly heard from her fellow AA members that everyone gets Denied on a License Appeal their first time around, and that she should just assume she'll have to go back a second time to win.

She said her whole reason for coming to see me was the unqualified and glowing referral to me that she had been provided. While I was flattered, the fact that she had not read any of my Driver's License Restoration articles meant that she had no real insight about the process. Even though she had met with some other Lawyers, the plain fact of the matter is that I have no doubt written more about License Restorations than all these other Lawyers have ever written about everything in their combined careers. Beyond that, I'm quite confident that I have won more License Restoration cases in the last few years than all these Lawyers, combined, have ever handled in their careers. Despite having sat with a few Lawyers who told her that they "did" License Restorations, I was rather sure she had been told nothing useful or worthwhile about what was involved. And as if on cue, at the end of our 3-hour meeting, she told me that, in fact, no one had gone into anything even close to the detail I had.

She was, understandably, a bit skeptical when I told her that I'd win her Appeal the first time around. In fact, she said that she had come prepared to hire me, but also to request that I do the absolute minimum so that we could just get what she expected to be her first and inevitable loss out of the way, thus paving the way for next year's Appeal.

Continue reading "WInning a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal the First TIme, Every TIme" »

A significant, if not majority portion of my Driver's License Restoration Practice involves Representing people who have previously tried a License Appeal (without me as their Lawyer) and lost. These Clients necessarily fall into one of two categories:

1. Those who hired some Lawyer who claimed they could "do" a License Appeal, and
   
2. Those who figured they could do it on their own.

In some of my previous blog articles, I have explained that these people make the best, or "easiest" Clients a License Restoration Lawyer, like me, can have. They show up, eager to pay and ready to follow instructions. Whatever beliefs they may have had about the License Restoration process, and however much they previously thought that they knew enough to win, they have been humbled by the depth and scope of the process, and know that, in order to do it right, they need expert guidance. In this article, we'll shift focus to a few of the most common reasons for that kind of lost License Appeal.

From my point of view, beyond simply offering guidance, I offer a Guarantee that if I don't win any Appeal I undertake the first time, I will continue to represent my Client before the Secretary of State's DAAD (Driver Assessment and Appeal Division) until they get their License back. This means that although a person may have lost without me, I want to make sure, and will guarantee, that they'll win with me.

Despite the almost unlimited possible ways someone can lose a License Appeal, most that I see are for what is considered a "Questionable/Insufficient Substance Abuse Evaluation." As we shall see, however, this one simple category encompasses a rather wide panorama of problems.

I have also pointed out in some of my prior articles that way too few Substance Abuse Counselors actually know how to complete, or "do" a DAAD Substance Abuse Evaluation. This is not really the fault of those Evaluators, but that lack of blame is cold comfort for anyone whose efforts to get back on the road are rejected.

Continue reading "Common Reasons why Many FIrst Time Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals Lose" »

In Part 1 of this article, we began discussing how a person can win a Drivers' License Restoration case without going to AA. We began by acknowledging the important role AA played in the genesis of the whole notion of "Recovery," and how AA has provided much of the language we use to talk about Recovery and Sobriety.

In this second part, we will pick up by examining how a person can get "Sober" without AA, and how and why the State recognizes that AA is but one of many viable ways to Recover from an alcohol problem. In other words, we'll discuss how and why a person can win a License Appeal without going to AA.

In the first part of this article, I noted that more than half of my Clients are not actively involved in AA. Of that group, probably half, or maybe even a bit more, have at least been to AA a few times. Some went for years, some for months, and a few for at least a couple of meetings. They all have their reasons for leaving the program, from outright dislike to simply feeling strong enough in their own Sobriety to not feel the need for the kind of support offered by AA. It really doesn't matter why a person left. What matters is that, in the end, they made a conscious decision that they didn't need to go to any more meetings to stay Sober.

Whether a person attended 1000 AA meetings, or only attended 1, they undoubtedly heard the "first step." Many of those who attended AA for a while will often say that they simply "got it," and felt comfortable leaving the program. Those who only went to a few meetings often say they already "had it," and that the notion of not drinking again was something they had already accepted, meaning that AA really didn't offer them anything more than they already had.

Some people just hated AA. They found it to be too "religious," or "cult-like." Some people just don't do well in groups. Again, whatever the reason a person never attended or stopped going to AA, the key thing, at least for a License Appeal, is that they recognize that they cannot drink alcohol anymore. And even if they've never heard of AA's first step, their understanding of their situation parallels that of any AA attendee; I have an alcohol problem, and the only way to "fix" it is to completely stop drinking.

In a License Appeal, the State is looking not only for abstinence from alcohol, but a commitment to remain abstinent. This is where AA provides, or at least used to provide, an advantage. AA both implicitly and explicitly makes clear that the ONLY way to "control" an alcohol problem is to never drink again. There is no room for debate. And however much a person may like or dislike the AA program, on this score, it is 100% correct. The ONLY way to "control" an alcohol problem is to NOT drink. Period.

Continue reading "How to Win a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal Without Being Involved in AA - Part 2" »

Can a person win back their Michigan Driver's License without going to AA? This article will address this question, and explain why the answer is not only "yes," but also how and why the majority of the License Appeals I file and win (and since about June of 2009, I have won 189 out of the last 191 cases I have accepted) are for people who are not currently attending AA.

Many of the people with whom I speak tell me that they've heard that "you can't win your License back without being in AA." To be clear: That's DEAD WRONG. I ought to know; I win such cases multiple times per week.

However, many years ago, that statement was much closer to the truth than it is now. If the reader had called my Office in back 1991 or 1992 and inquired about a License Appeal, the very first question I would have had is whether or not they were currently attending AA. If they were not, I would have simply instructed them to start going, and call me back after they had at least a year of attendance under their belt.

The pendulum has swung the other way, and I think this represents a better understanding on the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division's (DAAD) part that AA is a great program, and, in fact the ONLY program, for some, but NOT all people. To be clear about this: The MAJORITY of people for whom I win a License Appeal are NOT currently involved in AA.

This is not a knock against AA. As I noted, AA is a great program for lots of people. In fact, it is the only path to true Sobriety for SOME of them. But, in my opinion, one of its biggest shortcomings is that AA kind of "preaches" that it is, without exception, the ONLY legitimate path to true Sobriety.

Years ago, when I had a Substance Abuse Counselor as a Legal Assistant (she later left and became an Ordained Minister, and then moved on to become a College Professor), she helped me understand the whole notion of "Recovery" and "Sobriety" from a more holistic, panoramic perspective. She explained that there were various "schools of thought" about Recovery. Which one worked best for any particular person was a matter of choice, and fit, and that a "one size fits all" approach is just plain wrong-headed.

Continue reading "How to Win a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal Without Being Involved in AA - Part 1" »

In Part 2 of this article, we continued our examination of how and why some License Appeals lose due to what the DAAD calls a "questionable/insufficient Substance Abuse Evaluation." We began examining the Substance Abuse Evaluation form section by section, noting some of the common sources of errors in its completion that result in the State Denying a License Appeal.

In this 3rd and final Part, we will complete our section by section analysis of the Substance Abuse Evaluation form, then wrap up by looking at how to avoid losing a License Appeal for submitting a flawed Evaluation that the State considers "questionable/insufficient."

The Drug Screen (meaning Urine Test) section that follows is pretty clear. Despite the very clear request for a 10-panel drug test with at least 2 integrity variables, I have seen Evaluations that try and explain that the lab used by that particular Evaluator ONLY does 7-panel screens. That won't work. That's like going to a soda pop vending machine where the price of a Coke is $1.25 and only putting 4 quarters in. It doesn't fly.

Beyond making sure that a person actually took a 10-panel test, the Lawyer's job is to make sure that both integrity variables (usually "specific gravity" and the person's "creatinine level") are good. In addition, if the person is on any medication that shows up in the drug screen, explaining that is a must. This can include a letter from the person's physician outlining their condition, the need for the medication, and, if a mind or mood-altering medication MUST be prescribed, why that's the case, an acknowledgement that the Doctor knows the person is in Recovery, and that he or she is monitoring both the dosage and has determined that the person does not appear to be abusing the medication, or getting more of it from an additional source or sources.

A good Evaluator will address this right out of the gate. A good License Appeal Lawyer will make sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed in such a situation. Unfortunately, some of the Clients I see who have already lost on their first try become angry that either their previous Evaluator and/or Lawyer "didn't say anything about that to me!"

Next up is a person's Lifetime Abstinence History. Many readers who filed a prior Appeal and lost may have submitted the older version of this form (still valid, by the way, and more on that later) in which this section was called "Lifetime Relapse History." Despite the change in name, this section is still asking for the same exact information. Explaining what that means simply requires more space than I can afford without turning this article into a "textbook." Not to rely too much on an old crutch, but this section is rather important and knowing how to respond to it is part and parcel of why my first meeting with a new Client takes 3 hours. I cannot just "summarize" this, anymore than a Dentist can "summarize" how to do a root canal.

Continue reading "Losing a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal Because of a "Questionable/Insufficient" Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 3" »

In Part 1 of this article, we began examining the role of the Substance Abuse Evaluation in a License Appeal. I defined that role as "foundational." From there, we examined why so many Evaluators feel qualified to "do" a Driver's License Appeal Substance Abuse Evaluation, and what it means for the final product to be a disappointment and waste of money if the State declares to be "questionable/insufficient."

In this 2nd Part, we will continue by examining how the very term "Substance Abuse Evaluation" can be part of the problem in finding an Evaluator who knows what the Secretary of State is looking for within that form, and then we will begin doing a section-by-section analysis of the form itself.

Part of my success in License Appeals is no doubt due the fact that once I found a Clinic that did a consistently good job completing Substance Abuse Evaluations, I began communicating with them. I have actually gone in and met with their Counselors and explained what the State is looking for, and answered their questions about doing a proper job on the Substance Abuse Evaluation form. As a result, they have a detailed knowledge of what is important to the DAAD, as well as what is not. Ironically, this Clinic charges less ($199) than almost any other Clinic I have heard about, while managing to do a better job.

We can take from this that the term "Substance Abuse Evaluation" within the context of a License Appeal has a very specific, and different meaning than it does in other contexts.

Recently, I met a Client who has been seeing a Substance Abuse Counselor for a number of years. This Client expressed a preference to have the Evaluation completed by that Counselor, despite my stated reservations, based upon my experience with so many individuals who assure their Clients/Patients that "I can do that." The Evaluation came back last week, and it needs to be fixed. While not an outright disaster, it is clear to me that whoever did it does not have a clear picture of what the DAAD is looking for. As it stands, it is not good enough.

One of the requirements, clearly stated (although in very small print) on the Evaluation itself is that the actual Substance Abuse diagnostic test, along with the actual answer sheet the Client filled out be attached. In the case I just mentioned, it wasn't. This is a common, but potentially fatal error. On top of that, the State form has various "dialogue boxes" where the Evaluator's reasoning must be stated for reaching any particular conclusion, be it a Diagnosis or a Prognosis, or whatever else is being asked. This Evaluation came with an attachment sheet containing further explanations in a number of those areas. While that may, at first, appear helpful, in reality, it is not. Instead, it means the person doing the Evaluation does not quite understand exactly what is being asked, and cannot confine their responses to the space provided. There is simply no need, in ANY case, to "go outside the lines" of the State's form.

Continue reading "Losing a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal Because of a "Questionable/Insufficient" Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 2" »

In previous articles within the Driver's License Restoration Section of this blog, I have written about why so many "do-it-yourself" License Appeals lose, as well as those handled by Lawyers who claim to "do" License restoration cases, albeit not as a specific concentration of their Practice. In most of those articles, as in this one, I have begun by pointing out that "Rule 13," which governs Michigan Drivers' License Appeals (and applies equally to Appeals seeking either Restoration of a Michigan Drivers' License, or a Clearance of a Michigan "hold" on a person's Driving Record) mandates that the Hearing Officer deciding the case "shall not order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner..." proves their case "by clear and convincing evidence."

This language from Rule 13 sets the stage for EVERY License Appeal to either win, or lose. However, saying that is a lot like saying that in any sporting contest, the person or team with the most points wins. Such an oversimplification tends to ignore the importance of things like preventing the other side from scoring, and not being disqualified for fouls or illegal moves. In other words, there is a lot more to it than that.

In this article, we will look at a specific, very common reason so many License Appeals are Denied; that the Substance Abuse Evaluation filed with the Appeal was "questionable/insufficient." Rather than focus on the general application of the standard of proof required under Rule 13, or the various legal issues specified within the Rule, we'll examine this real-world reason people are often turned down. This will be a serious and long article, and because of the amount of detail and information contained in it, will be broken in to 3 sub-parts.

At this point, anyone who has read this far is either a detail-kind of person, like me, and hungry for knowledge, or has already previously tried a License Appeal and lost. And if the reader is in the latter category, there is a good chance that, within the Order of Denial from that previous attempt, it is noted that the Substance Abuse Evaluation submitted as part of that Appeal was "questionable/insufficient."

What does that mean? And how does it relate to Rule 13?

We'll answer those questions in turn.

As I have pointed out on both my website, and in the various articles about this subject within this blog, the Substance Abuse Evaluation is the very foundation of a License Appeal. This is why, in my Office, my FIRST meeting with a Client is scheduled for about 3 hours, and is focused almost entirely on preparing the Client to undergo the Evaluation.

It is important to note the timing of this: I need to meet with the Client for 3 hours BEFORE they go and have their Evaluation completed. Meeting after the fact is like buying an instant lottery ticket; whatever is in there is already in there, meaning it's either a winner or a loser, and no amount of talking about it is going to change what has already been printed.

Continue reading "Losing a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal Because of a "Questionable/Insufficient" Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 1" »

In Part 1 of this article, we began examining the process by which someone who has moved out of Michigan, but has a Michigan "hold" on their Driving Record goes about obtaining a "Clearance," which releases that hold. We observed that in the year 2010, the Secretary of State received 875 Administrative Appeals, and DENIED 650 of them, meaning that 3 out of 4 such Appeals Lost. By contrast, I pointed out that in that same year, I conducted over 70 live License Hearings, and won each and every one, meaning that 100% of my Clients got back on the road.

In this second part, we will examine my Office protocol for accepting and handling out-of-state Driver's License Appeals. We left off at the end of the first part of this article by noting that in an Administrative Appeals, (and 3 out of 4 cases being Denied proves this), it is quite likely that the Hearing Officer reviewing the case will have a question, or questions, but with no way to ask them, will be left with no choice but to Deny it. We noted that the State, will say, in essence, "See you next year..."

The benefit to me, as a License Restoration Lawyer, is that once someone tries an Administrative Appeal and loses, they are almost always "all ears" when the chance for next year's Appeal rolls around. About the only question they have of me is how soon they can come in and start the process.

And it is a process. It is a labor-intensive, important process for which there are no shortcuts. My first meeting with a new Client is scheduled for 3 hours, and is pretty much solely dedicated to preparing them to undergo the mandatory Substance Abuse Evaluation. And that's just the first step.

Having handled hundreds of cases for people who live out of state, and for hundreds who still live here, in Michigan, but rather far away from my Office, I have developed a pretty efficient system for having them come in the day of their Substance Abuse Evaluation, meeting with them for about 3 hours, then sending them around the block to have the Evaluation completed.

Normally, I like my Clients to have their Substance Abuse Evaluation completed at a local Clinic a few blocks from my Office. I prefer this Clinic because they do a top-notch job of completing the Evaluation. By "top-notch job," I DO NOT mean that they simply take someone's money and crank out a favorable report. The State can smell that kind of quackery a mile away. The Clinic I like does not rent or sell its integrity, and instead conducts a thorough Evaluation which results in a Clinically accurate diagnosis and prognosis of and for a person's alcohol problem and Recovery. This means that a person must, in fact, be both Sober, and committed to remaining Sober, in order to pass muster. Fakers and scammers need not apply.

Normally, a person will have their Evaluation scheduled about 4 hours after our meeting time, so that we can spend 3 hours together preparing for that first step, then they can go and spend another hour getting it done. After that, they can go home, wherever that may be. We can do the rest of our work via phone and fax and email.

Continue reading "How to Clear up a Michigan Hold on Your Driver's License and Get a License in Another State - Part 2" »

As a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, I file (and win) over 100 License Appeals each year. More than half of those Appeals are for people who now live outside of Michigan, but are still unable to get a License in another state because of a Michigan "hold" on their driving Record. Most of these cases involve a person having multiple DUI convictions. It is not necessary that all, or even any of those DUI's took place in Michigan. What matters (as anyone reading this has no doubt already discovered) is that the person had a Michigan Driver's License that was Revoked for 2 or more DUI's within 7 years, or 3 or more within 10 years, wherever they may have occurred.

While I have written rather extensively on this topic within the Driver's License Restoration section of my blog, it seems that unless I regularly keep writing about this particularly important topic, finding those articles about "out-of-state" Michigan Drivers' License Restoration issues requires some digging. As always, I will try to do more than just re-state what I've already said in previous articles. Accordingly, this will be a long, 2-part article that will not only explore the options for out-of-state residents who are being held back by a Michigan "hold" on their Driving Record, but will also examine how I handle these cases and get my out-of-state Clients back on the road.

When a person has left Michigan without having had their Driver's License Restored, meaning they have left with their License still Revoked, they often don't understand that this Revocation will prevent them from obtaining a License in another state. Sometimes, because they intend to live outside of Michigan and have no intention of ever returning (except, perhaps, for a visit), they have ideas of beginning afresh in a new place.

As they soon discover, however, the Michigan "hold" on their Driver's License follows them everywhere.

In fact, most people who find me do so as a consequence of learning that they must "clear" the hold on their Michigan Driving Record. Very few people research this issue before they go to the DMV of their new state. Instead, they come home from that DMV and start trying to figure out how to clear up this mess.

In that regard, it does not matter if a person now lives out of State, lives around the block from my Office in Mt. Clemens, or lives in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, because in each and every one of those cases, there are 2, and only 2, procedures available to clear up a Michigan Driver's License Revocation. We'll get to those shortly. What's different for those who live out of state is the relief sought by whichever procedure a person uses to try and move forward. Let me explain:

A person who lives in Michigan, and wants their License Restored will file for a "Restoration" of their Michigan Driver's License. In other words, they want their Michigan License back. A person who no longer lives in Michigan, and who wants a License in another state, will seek what is called a "Clearance" of their Michigan Driving Record, which means a release of Michigan's hold, or, to put it another way, a "voiding out" of the previous Revocation that prevents them from obtaining a License in their new state.

Continue reading "How to Clear up a Michigan Hold on Your Driver's License and Get a License in Another State - Part 1" »

In part 1 of this article, we began looking at how an important part of any License Appeal is the specific Hearing Officer to whom the case has been assigned. We talked about 3 of the 5 Hearing Officers before whom I appear in the Metro-Detroit Branch of the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) in Livonia. In the interests of diplomacy, I have refrained from using their actual names, but have instead referred to them by the nickname that I think encapsulates their most prominent characteristic(s).

We'll pick up by looking at the 2 Hearing Officers generally considered the "toughest" of the group. I use the term "toughest" rather liberally here. In my experience, while these Hearing Officers are no doubt firm, they are also unquestionably fair in application of the Law to any case before them. Sometimes, especially if a person does not understand the subtleties of the law, and especially if they really and truly have been Sober for a while, they feel slighted for being Denied, without fully understanding that any such Denial isn't a decision that they're not Sober, but rather a decision that they have failed to prove that their alcohol problem is under control, and that their alcohol problem is likely to remain under control, by the required "clear and convincing evidence" standard.

With that, let's turn out attention to the two remaining Hearing Officers:

4. The Doctor. Perhaps the "hardest" (okay, "toughest") of all Hearing Officers, this individual tends to approach the entire process more from that side of the governing Rule (Rule13) which directs that "The Hearing Officer shall NOT order that a License be issued, unless the Petitioner, by clear and convincing evidence, proves the following..." (emphasis added). In other words, this Hearing Officer has the highest standard for what he considers to be "clear and convincing evidence." He has the nose of a tracking dog for any use of drugs, meaning past drug use, or current prescription drug use, as well as cases involving any kind of anxiety, depression, or other mental health or mood issues. If any of those issues are present, or were ever present, then preparing for a Hearing before him will typically involve getting a letter from one's treatment provider addressing his specific concerns, including that the prescribing physician or treatment provider knows about the person's alcohol and or drug problem(s). Likewise, he tends to make a microscopic examination of any issues involving anxiety or mood disorders, or any kind of bi-polar issues. Whatever else, he is not content to accept the Substance Abuse Evaluator's conclusion that such an issue "isn't a problem."

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration Appeals in Michigan - Know Your Hearing Officer - Part 2" »

In a recent article, I wrote about the importance of being "prepped" for a Driver's License Restoration Appeal Hearing. The focus of that article was on the general process of preparation for License Hearing. Here, we'll narrow that focus to a specific question that I am often asked by my Clients once the Notice of Hearing is sent from Lansing, and the name of the Hearing Officer who will be deciding the Appeal is disclosed: "What do you know about this Hearing Officer?"

In every such case, the answer is " a lot."

As usual for me, this will be a long article, and will, like so many others I have written, be broken into 2 parts.

As I have noted on my website and in some of the articles in the Drivers' License Restoration section of this blog, I have every case I handle set for a live Hearing at the Livonia branch of the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD). There are only 3 such DAAD Hearing Offices in Michigan: Lansing, Grand Rapids and Livonia.

Before we get into the meat and potatoes of the question that is the subject of this article, I should also reiterate that I only do "live Hearings." In other words, I NEVER do any kind of "video Hearing." This is noteworthy because very recently, the DAAD began allowing Hearings to be conducted at the Clinton Township Branch of the Secretary of State Office on Metropolitan Parkway (16 Mile) and Gratiot. This Branch Office is only about 4 or 5 minutes from my Office in Mt. Clemens, while getting to the Livonia Office takes about an hour, or even a bit more, from my front door. Despite that, it has never so much as crossed my mind to do anything other than show up, in person, for a live Hearing in Livonia. I not only believe in live Hearings, I ONLY believe in live Hearings.

This means that, over the course of my career, I have had every case I have ever handled set of a live Hearing in the Metro-Detroit DAAD Hearing Office. Formerly located in Southfield, this Office moved to Livonia a few years ago.

Having appeared before this same group of Hearing Officers again and again, I have certainly come to know the idiosyncrasies and particularities and quirks of each, and quite well, at that. This is a HUGE benefit as I prepare the Client to testify before any one of them.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration Appeals in Michigan - Know Your Hearing Officer - Part 1" »

This article will detail a change, or, more particularly, a clarification (and kind of extension) of my Guarantee to win any Driver's License Restoration Appeal that I accept. In a previous article, I announced that I Guarantee I will win any License Appeal I accept, "or the next one is free." For someone who prides himself on the precision of the language he uses, and given that this blog has more highly detailed, informational articles about Driver's License Restoration that can be found on every other website out there combined, I have to admit that I missed the mark and did not properly explain my Guarantee very well. I assumed (and remember, one should NEVER assume) that everyone would understand that to mean that I simply guaranteed, in exchange for my Fee, that I would get the Client back on the road. At least, that's what I meant...

To clarify, then:

I GUARANTEE THAT I WILL WIN ANY DRIVER'S LICENSE APPEAL I ACCEPT THE FIRST TIME. IF NOT, I WILL HANDLE ANY SUBSEQUENT SECRETARY OF STATE LICENSE APPEAL WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FEES UNTIL THE CLIENT DOES WIN.

In other words, you pay me once, and if that Appeal is Denied (as of this writing, by the way, I have won 184 out of the last 186 Appeals I have filed since I began keeping track back in June of 2009, giving me a first time " win rate" of 98.92%, meaning that I don't have very much experience NOT winning the first time), I will go back to the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) until we win.

This really involves no risk for me, but does provide assurance to the Client that I'm not about to just accept a Fee and not be able to deliver what they're hiring me for.

Of course, there are limitations. If, for example, the Client has some kind of "meltdown" at the Hearing, and starts testifying about a drug use pattern that they previously failed to disclose, or if they admit to having taken a few hits off of a joint a few months ago, then the Guarantee does not apply.

To put this in perspective, I promise that if a person comes to me and has, indeed, been Sober for what I determine to be long enough, and is committed to remaining Sober, and I take their case, then they can count on me to get their License back. If there is something defective within the evidence submitted as part of their Appeal, then I think its only fair that I would go back next time to rectify something that, by all accounts, I must have missed.

But I don't miss things. This is my job, and my passion.

Continue reading "Guaranteed Win in a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal" »

In the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog, my various articles examine every aspect and facet of the License Appeal process in sometimes microscopic and painful detail. There is, of course, a method to my madness. I know that it is precisely that attention to detail that has resulted in my winning 184 out of the last 186 License Appeals I have filed (giving me a win rate of 98.92%), since I began really keeping track back in about June of 2009. It is also this attention to detail that makes me so sure I'll win any License Appeal I take the first time that I offer a Guarantee that if I do not, I will handle any subsequent License Hearing without additional Fees until I get the Client back on the road.

In a few of my articles, I have talked about Sobriety. Sobriety is, in fact, a first requirement in a License Appeal. Yet sometimes, I think beyond being the first requirement, it is also the first thing forgotten, or lost sight of, in a Driver's License Restoration case. This article will not just reexamine what I have already dissected in my other articles about "Sobriety," but will look at what the State needs to hear about on the subject from anyone hoping to win back their License. This will be a longer article.

In another recent article, I pointed out that Rule 13 of the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) governs a Driver's License Restoration Appeal. We went on to boil Rule 13 down to 2 parts:

1. That the person's alcohol problem is under control, and
2. That the person's alcohol problem is likely to remain under control.

In a very real way, this mean that the person has been Sober since "X" date (usually a date MORE than a year prior to an Appeal being filed), and will likely remain Sober for the rest of their life.

Upon further examination, we will see that while being "Sober" necessarily means one is abstinent, being "abstinent" does not, necessarily, mean being "Sober." This might make more sense if we look at an example.

Say Snake the Biker got off Probation for his second DUI about a year ago. If we were to ask him about not drinking, and how that's working out for him, Snake might say something like this:

"I hate it. Dude, I'm a Biker. What kind of Biker can't drink beer?" This sucks. But, I know that if I pick up another DUI, I'll be sent off to Jail or Prison for at least a year, I'll lose my motorcycle repair shop, I won't be in the Club anymore, and I'll lose my house, too. So I just sit here, drinking Coke, and hating this mess."

Snake may be abstinent, but he's far from Sober.

Continue reading "Winning a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeal Means Being Sober First" »

Almost all of the articles in the Driver's License Restoration section of my blog examine some aspect or aspects of the License Appeal process. It seems that lately, however, and perhaps because of the sheer number of those articles, some people are less inclined to read through enough of them before calling my Office with any License-related problem. As a result, I thought that perhaps I should outline the kind of cases that fall within the scope of what I do, and those fall outside.

To begin with, ALL of the cases I handle in my License Restoration Practice involve a person having had their MICHIGAN Driver's License Revoked for multiple DUI's, or some combination of DUI's and/or Substance Abuse-related convictions. Many of my Clients now live outside of Michigan, but the central difficulty they have is that their MICHIGAN License has been Revoked. In some cases, they may have, for a time, been able to get a valid License elsewhere, but at some point, they butt up against the Michigan Revocation while trying to renew or get a License in another state. They are told, quite correctly, that they'll need to clear up Michigan's "hold" on their License in order to get a valid License in that other state.

I point this out because any number of people call my Office about a License problem NOT related to Michigan. As a duly licensed Michigan Lawyer, I can only advise, much less represent anyone, as it relates to matters of Michigan Law. This means the core issue in any License case I handle will be a Michigan Driver's License Revocation, even if the person no longer lives here, and simply wants to obtain a Driver's License in another state. I've had people call from other states who have never had a Michigan License and whose legal issues are entirely governed by the laws of another state. I cannot help in those cases. I can only help when there is a Michigan License issue involved.

Another question that comes up frequently is whether or not I can advise someone on how to go about the License Appeal process on their own. Under Michigan Law, a person can file for what's called an Administrative Appeal, which is basically a request for a Michigan License or Clearance by mail. I DO NOT handle such cases, nor do I advise anyone regarding them. There are two reasons for this:

First, and perhaps most importantly, Administrative Appeals are sure losers. According to the Michigan Secretary of State, in the fiscal year 2010, it received 875 Administrative License Appeals. Of those, 650 (74%) were DENIED. That's a 3 out of 4 chance of LOSING!

By contrast, in the year 2010, I handled over 70 live, in-person Hearings, and won each and every one, giving me a 100% win rate. Beyond that, I guarantee that I will win any Appeal I accept, or the next is free.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration - Michigan Issues only, Please..." »

While it might be easy to understand my job as a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer as making sure a License Appeal can and does go forward, there is another aspect to my job that's far less glamorous than that. Sometimes, I have to be the "heavy" who "pulls the plug."

This means that in some cases, I have to tell the Client that we have to start all over again, or re-do this or that part of our case, before we file the actual Appeal. And while no one wants to hear that, my Clients do understand that's what they're paying me for; to make sure that a case doesn't go forward with a fatal defect, or some flaw that can turn into that.

One situation that has reared its head, not surprisingly, occurs when I'm hired after a person has previously tried on their own to win their License back, and lost. Usually, the Client will come in with only that previous Order of Denial from the Secretary of State. In and of itself, that Order will tell me exactly what went wrong, and what needs to be fixed in order to win. But in some cases, there is more. Let me explain:

While I don't handle any part of Administrative Appeals, as I feel strongly that there absolutely must be a live, in-person (NOT VIDEO) Hearing, any number of my Clients are people who have tried that route before. The fact that they're now my Clients means they found out the hard way that such Administrative Appeals are generally losing propositions.

Anyway, as part of the paperwork they will have submitted with that prior Administrative Appeal, they will have completed an Affidavit. An Affidavit is a sworn document. It carries the weight of sworn testimony, and is generally sworn to under penalty of perjury. It really is testimony, except it's in writing.

Within that Affidavit, the person will have indicated the last time they consumed any alcohol whatsoever. In the world of Recovery, this is called a "Sobriety Date." People in AA sometimes call it their "Birthday." It is, by all accounts, an important date, kind of like a wedding anniversary.

Continue reading "Another Simple, Clear Danger in a "Do-it-Yourself" (Administrative) Michigan Driver's License Appeal" »

A significant percentage of my Driver's License Restoration Practice involves representing Clients who have either moved out of the State of Michigan, or those who live rather far away from both my Office and the Livonia branch of the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), where I have all my Appeal Hearings conducted. A recent experience I had made clear just how critical and important the "prep session" that I have with all of my Clients, a day or two before their actual License Hearing, really is.

Ann, my Senior Assistant, had correctly told me that this particular Client, who lives on the west coast, would be flying in to Michigan the day before his Hearing. As she confirmed his attendance at the Hearing, she also, as a matter of course, verified his contact phone number so that I could call him to do our "prep session." This "prep session" takes place a day or two before the Client's actual hearing, and lasts anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half. I often do it over the phone, in the evening, when there are no outside distractions or anything else than can interrupt me.

For whatever reason, I had misheard Ann, and thought my Client was coming in a day or two before his Hearing.

Having assumed my Client was already in town, I tried to call him in the early afternoon the day before his Hearing, as I was going to have an hour's drive back to the Office from Court, and had already arranged with the Office to not interrupt me.

I called my Client, and got his voicemail. No big deal, I thought. I left him a message and indicated I'd call again.

On the drive home, I called again, and got the same voicemail. Again, I left a message, thinking that maybe he was busy catching up with family and friends.

After dinner, I called again. Got voicemail again. By this time, I was becoming a bit concerned.

A little while later, I placed another call, and, you guessed it, got his voicemail.

An hour after that, I placed another call, and upon getting his voicemail, I could not hide the concern in my voice. I told him I was worried that he left his phone back at home, and that we wouldn't be able to go over everything before the next day's Hearing. I envisioned his cell phone, sitting on his dresser, buzzing away....

Continue reading "The Importance of Being "Prepped" for A Michigan Driver's License Restoration Hearing" »

In my role as a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, I read the decisions of the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) almost daily. Fortunately, when reading those Orders for the License Appeals that I handle, I'm always reading a winning decision. Having won 181 of the last 183 cases I've handled, I can honestly say that I have almost no experience reading a Denial in any of my cases. However, many of my Clients are people who have already tried on their own to win back a License, or used some Lawyer who claims to "do" License Appeals, and lost. When they come in, part of the paperwork they bring is any previous Denial Order.

In this article, we'll look at why a previous Order of Denial is so important in the larger job of preparing for a subsequent License Appeal that will win.

From the outside, someone might just think that you file a License Appeal, and either win or lose. Like everything else about the whole License Restoration process, it's far more complicated than that.

To fully understand what's involved, we need to take a few steps back from the final result of the process, and look at what goes into it. In my various other articles about Driver's License Restoration, I have covered pretty much every aspect of the License Appeal process in detail. The focus of our examination here both governs and precedes even the very first step in that process. Let me explain:

In order to win a License Appeal, a person must prove certain things. Those "things" are outlined in the DAAD's Rule 13, which begins as follows:

The Hearing Officer shall not order that a License be issued to the Petitioner unless the Petitioner proves, by Clear and Convincing Evidence, all of the following...

The point of this whole detour is to point out how the Rule is written in the negative, and that the DAAD is required to NOT issue a License unless the person proves the relevant things by "Clear and Convincing Evidence."

"Clear and Convincing Evidence" is a kind of hybrid standard of proof that falls short of what's necessary to convict someone of a crime under the "Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt" benchmark, but well beyond what it takes to win a Small Claims matter, where the standard of proof is a "Preponderance of the Evidence." One way to think of it is that "Preponderance of the Evidence" requires that the scales of justice be tipped just over the 50% mark, like 50.01%. "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt might be likened to tipping the scales past the 90% mark, while "Clear and Convincing Evidence" would amount to tipping the scales past the 80% mark.

Continue reading "Michigan Drivers' License Restoration - How a Denial can Become a Win" »

In part 1 of this article, we began examining the legal issues in a Driver's License Restoration Appeal, and saw how many of the issues specified in the Rule governing the Appeals actually folded into 2 (and sometimes 3) simpler issues. From there, we narrowed the scope of our review down to that one issue that is really at the core of any License Appeal, that the person's alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control."

Here, we'll put this issue under the microscope and try to show how a person proves that their alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control."

At the Hearing which was the subject of another article from last week, the Hearing Officer pointed out that proving abstinence is relatively easy, and there are tests, such as urine tests, and even hair follicle tests, which can substantiate claims of abstinence. He then pointed out that there is no such test to prove a person won't drink again, and that "proving" this is, at its core, more subjective than anything else.

This really cuts to the heart of a License Appeal.

How does a person prove that they won't drink again? The DAAD, after all, knows that even some of those who they have examined very closely and to whom they have granted Licenses go out and drink again. Those that come to their attention either test positive for alcohol on the mandatory ignition interlock, or pick up another DUI.

It would probably be easy for the DAAD to require 10 years of Sobriety backed up with 10 years of AA attendance. That would certainly weed out most of their trouble. The problem with that is that the law allows a person to file an Appeal 1 year after their 2nd DUI within 7 years, or 5 years after their 3rd within 10 years. On top of that, the DAAD Rules only require 1 year of abstinence, at most.

So what does it take for a person who has DUI's spanning 3 or 5 or 7 years to prove that, after 1 year of abstinence, they really are a safe bet to NOT drink again?

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration - The Most Important Part of the Appeal - Part 2" »

In a Driver's License Restoration article I put up last week, I wrote about representing a Client who had previously won back his License, only to lose it again for another DUI. As I thought back on the Hearing itself, several observations made by the Hearing Officer presented themselves as the inspiration for this article.

Within the body of my License Restoration articles, I have covered this subject from every angle possible. This article will be a new twist on a familiar aspect of winning a License Appeal. Here, we'll focus on the core issue in any License Appeal, that the person's alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control." This will be an in-depth and long article, and, accordingly, will be broken into 2 parts.

To set things up, let's take a look at what needs to be proven to win a License case. The law governing License Appeals are Administrative Rules, and the one setting forth the legal issues and standard of proof in any License Appeal case is set out in what is known as "Rule 13," reprinted below in relevant part:

(a) The hearing officer shall not order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:

(i) That the petitioner's alcohol or substance abuse problems, if any, are under control and likely to remain under control.
(ii) That the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk.
(iii) That the risk of the petitioner repeating the act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by, or under the influence of, alcohol or controlled substances or a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance or repeating any other offense listed in section 303(1)(d), (e), or (f) or (2)(c), (d), (e), or (f) of the act is a low or minimal risk.
(iv) That the petitioner has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law.
(v) Other showings that are relevant to the issues identified in paragraphs (i) to (iv) of this subdivision.

Now, before anyone rolls their eyes or runs off in panic, all of this can be boiled down to 2 or 3 rather simple things.

First, it is important to note that the Rule directs the Hearing Officer to NOT issue a License unless the Petitioner proves their case by "Clear and Convincing Evidence." This means that, unlike just about every other law out there, this one is written in the negative. For all the discussion we could have about this, it more or less boils down to the Hearing Officer being directed to find a reason or reasons to NOT grant a License, and not the other way around.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration - The Most Important Part of the Appeal - Part 1" »

The Driver's License Restoration process is just that: a process. I have covered pretty much every step of that process within the various articles of the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog. Equally important as each, or any, of the steps in a License Appeal is how the case is proven. By "how," I mean the legal "standard of proof" that must be met in order to win.

Think about this for a moment: When you hear the phrase "win a License Appeal," what comes to mind? Winning, of course, but what else? Doing enough to win, right? Proving whatever it is that needs to be proven. But exactly what does that mean?

In a Driver's License Restoration Appeal, the standard of proof that must be met for a person to actually win is called "clear and convincing evidence." While this sounds complicated, it is really rather straightforward, and can be best understood by seeing how it falls between the standard of proof required to win a lawsuit and that required to convict someone of a crime.

Now, imagine those famous scales of Justice. Pretty much everyone understands that if one person is suing another, in order to win the lawsuit, the person doing the suing must "tip the scales." This legal standard of proof is called "preponderance of the evidence," and is often described as "50.01% to 49.99%"

Likewise, we generally understand that, in a Criminal case, the Prosecutor has to prove a person's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means the scales tilt as far down on one side as they'll go, sending the opposite site as high up as it will go. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher standard of proof than "preponderance of the evidence."

Where does "clear and convincing evidence" fit in? It almost sounds like it would fit nicely about halfway between "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt," doesn't it? And while that's not exactly accurate, it isn't far off the mark, either.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - How the Case is Actually Proven" »

My Practice as a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer brings in many calls from people who want to get back on the road. In the last 2 years or so, I have won 168 out of the 170 License Appeals I have filed, giving me a win rate of 98.4%. I guarantee that I will win any Appeal I accept the first time, or the next is free.

One question that has come up quite a bit lately, from a number of callers, is whether or not I will accept their case. They want to know if I think they meet the "standards" I have set to take an Appeal. This is interesting, and a bit ironic, because, as it turns out, almost none of the people who ask this question have anything to worry about.

Recently, I have gone to some lengths to point out, in my various blog articles about Driver's License Restoration, that I am only interested in representing people who are really and truly Sober.

I have likewise made clear that anyone who tells me that they can or will say whatever I want them to, but still believes they can have a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer every once in awhile, no matter what anyone says, can forget about having me handle their case. I'm not interested. I want to win Licenses back for people who have really made the commitment to not drink again.

What's ironic is that those who have made that commitment seem to be those who tend to ready many, if not all of my License Restoration articles. As a result, they know I have that "Sobriety" threshold for accepting new cases. These people, as it turns out, are almost always the ones who have made that commitment to ongoing sobriety. It seems that those who have the most concern about whether I'll take their case or not have the least to be concerned about.

Other people perhaps scan the titles of my more than 70 License Restoration articles, read a little bit here and there, and conclude, from the sheer number of my writings on this topic, that I know my stuff (and I do), and therefore, I am the guy they should hire. By not reading enough of what I have written, however, they have missed something important.

Continue reading "Michigan License Restoration - Are You Ready to Win?" »

Within the numerous articles in the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog, I have attempted to answer many of the questions I am asked about this subject, explain the process in detail, and micro-analyze some of the more important parts of that process. This rather long article will be a bit different in that, while it is an attempt to answer a question I am sometimes asked, it will answer questions about me, and why anyone looking to retain a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer should hire me.

This question typically comes up as people ask why they should pay $3000 for my services when there are other Lawyers who will "do" a License Restoration case for less. Of course, there are also Lawyers who charge more than I do, but this article isn't about them.

This is a fair and honest question, and it deserves an equally honest answer.

To begin, it is important to note that for all the endorsements I am about ready to heap upon myself, I back them up with a guarantee that I will win any License Appeal that I accept, or the next Hearing is free. Given that, in the last 2 years or so, I have won 168 out of the 170 License Appeals I have filed (that's a win rate of about 98.4%), I have every reason to back up my words.

I start with this because every Lawyer out there boasts about having "experience." Experience is great, but it needs to be winning experience to be worth anything. A boxer with a 36-39 record has the same experience as one with a 73-2 record, but wouldn't you rather bet your money on the guy with the 73-2 record?

Next, I think it is important to assess the Lawyer's experience and understanding of the License Restoration process. Anyone can write a web page or two and give some generalizations about their "experience" and the License Restoration process, but if you're about to invest your money in a License Appeal knowing that, if you lose, you cannot Appeal again for another whole year, then you need to make sure that any Lawyer you're considering will get you back on the road the first time. All the money saved in going "low bidder" will only be a huge regret if you get stuck bumming rides for the next 12 months.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer - Why Should You Hire Me?" »

As a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, I deal with the details and nuances of the License Appeal process every day. One Rule, in particular, is the centerpiece by which pretty much every License Appeal wins, or loses.

The Rule which governs Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals is known as "Rule 13." You'll find it quoted in any number of the articles within the Driver's License Restoration section of my Blog, as well as in my website. Similarly, you'll find it splashed all over the web. It's not a particularly difficult Rule to read, but I honestly think that practically no one, including most Lawyers, understands the single most important facet of this Rule.

This article will examine what's really at the core of making a License Appeal so difficult. Rather than reprint the whole of Rule 13, we need only look at the very first part of it to see what I mean:

Rule 13. . . .

(a) The hearing officer shall not order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:

The key words here are "shall not." There really is no other Law or Rule of which I know that is written in the negative. This one is.

In Criminal cases, the Prosecutor must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a Civil Lawsuit, the person suing must prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence." These standards of proof are written in the affirmative, meaning that Judge or Jury is NOT instructed to look for reasons to convict, or rule against someone. The DAAD Rulef, however, is essentially written in the negative. The Hearing Officer is instructed to deny a License Appeal unless the person proves their case by "clear and convincing evidence."

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration - Why so Many Appeals Lose" »

As a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, I have probably put out more information on this very subject than can be found, cumulatively, anywhere else. I have proudly proclaimed that in 2010, I won 100% of the more than 70 cases I filed. I have pointed out that, overall, my win percentage is in the high 90's. I have, in short, tried to convince a potential Client that I'm good at what I do, and I have a proven track record of succeeding at it.

Then I had one of the "a-ha" moments. If I'm really, nearly as good at this as I expect you to believe, why would I ask you to risk your money without a bit more than just my self-description of success? What could I do to put MY money (as opposed to yours) where MY mouth is?

The answer hit me like a ton of bricks. How about backing up my claims with a guarantee? After all, if I'm as good as I claim, it really wouldn't be much of a risk for me to prove that, would it?

So here is my guarantee in Driver's License Restoration cases:

If I take your case, and I do not win your first License Appeal, the next one is absolutely FREE.

For all that talk about how much time I spend with my Clients (usually 3 hours at our first meeting) and how well my staff and I inspect everything to make sure I submit a rock-solid Appeal, why not back it up?

Now, before we go popping the corks on the non-alcoholic sparkling grape juice here, you've got to know there will be some limitations and exclusions.

My guarantee of a free second Appeal if the first one is not successful will not cover any case where the Client goes into some kind of "meltdown" at the Hearing, and starts revealing things that I should have been told beforehand. If, for example,a person begins this process, claiming Sobriety for a year, or two, or however many, but then shows up at the Hearing and admits to having had a sip of champagne last New Year, or having smoked a joint a few months before, that's not covered. Likewise, suddenly revealing a previously undisclosed drug use pattern, or any such thing as would have been relevant in our extensive discussions about Sobriety and Recovery, will void this guarantee.

In other words, my Guarantee is limited to my services. It protects the Client in case I somehow miss something.

So, in the interests of self-promoting, I can now boast not only having, far and away, the most information about License Restoration to be found anywhere, but being the first Lawyer I've ever heard of to guarantee the quality and outcome of a License Appeal.

The more analytical reader who stops and does the math must surely conclude, as I did before ever making this offer, that my potential exposure amounts to less than 5% additional work. That is, if I really do win well over 90% of the License Appeals I file (and I do), and I'm accurate in calculating that figure to actually be in the high 90's, then, at most, I'd be making less than 5% additional work for myself.

That math, however, essentially translates into a 100% guarantee for the Client.

So what are you waiting for, a ride to come and see me?

Let's get you back on the road, legally.

In my Driver's License Restoration Practice I have come to realize that very few people know that a person on Probation, or Parole, cannot win a License Appeal. Almost all of those with whom I speak are surprised to learn this. Often, I am asked something like "but I just received a notice from the State that I'm eligible to file for my License. How can that be?" This article will examine that conundrum.

To begin with, the reader should take note of the fact that License Restorations are really the bread and butter of what I do. I say this because the reader should bear in mind that I'm in business to make money, not turn away potential paying Clients. Therefore, when I tell a person they must wait before they can win a License Restoration case, I don't so so because I'm too busy counting piles of money, I say it because I know exactly what it takes to win such an Appeal. In the year 2010, I brought over 70 cases to Hearing, and won every single one of them. This means I passed on any number of those Appeals just not ready, or able, to succeed.

The reason a License Appeal cannot be won while a person is on Probation, or Parole, is that the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), the department that handles all License Appeals, deems anyone on Probation or Parole to be "living in a controlled environment." In pretty much every case where a person is on Parole or Probation, they are subject to drug and alcohol testing. Even if a person was required to test so many times per week for the first several months of Probation, and then allowed to terminate that scheduled testing, by virtue of the fact that they are still under the Court's jurisdiction in Probationary cases, and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections in Parole cases, they are still under Order to not consume any drugs or alcohol, and are always subject to a random test requested by their Probation or Parole Officer.

In order to win a License Appeal, a person must show that their abstinence from alcohol is voluntary, and that they have chosen not to drink without fear of consequence. The fact that someone is subject to testing, even if they are rarely (or never actually) tested, means they cannot prove that any period of abstinence was completely voluntary. At least that's how the State sees it.

Let's examine why it works out this way. The 2 biggest issues in a License Appeal are:

1. That the Petitioner's alcohol problem is under control, and

2. That the Petitioner's alcohol problem is likely to remain under control.

Proving that the problem is under control involves proving the person has not consumed any alcohol for a certain period of time. That's the easier of the two.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration - You must be off Probation, or Parole, to win" »

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" »

In part 1 of this article, I began a more detailed explanation of why I'd rather represent a person in a License Appeal who has tried on their own and lost, rather than spend the time trying to convince a skeptic that they should use the services of a License Restoration Lawyer. In this second part, we'll pick up that discussion right where we left off in the first part, and examine this from my perspective as the License Restoration Lawyer.

When that call comes in from someone who has tried on their own, and lost, they know, without fail, that they need guidance. They are, in every sense of the phrase, "all ears." Once I explain that our first meeting will take at least 3 hours, and that's only the beginning, they start to see that there is much more to this than they had at first realized, when they thought they could do it on their own.

Many of those who previously used some Lawyer who said that he or she "does" License Appeals will have read many, if not most or all of my articles about the License Restoration process before they decided to call me. They frequently tell me that their old Lawyer didn't tell them any of the things I go over in my articles, and are sometimes a bit angry about that, feeling a bit mislead. Happy as they are to be speaking with someone who knows this stuff, there is an understandable reticence on their part to hand over money to another Lawyer. It's kind of like getting a bad nose job, then looking for a better Plastic Surgeon to fix it up; a person will be a bit skeptical of the whole medical (or in my case, legal) industry.

While I can't turn back the hands of time and undo what's been done, I can promise two things to anyone whose case I take:

1. If I take your case, it means I think it's winnable. Given that I will close out 2010 with a 100% win rate (having done over 70-some Appeals), and that I always maintain a win rate of well over 90%, that promise is based upon experience, not just hope, and

2. I will do everything humanly and legally possible to make sure we prepare their case as best as can be done to insure a victory. There is nothing more that can be done, but doing any less is just plain wrong.

[Update: as of March of 2011, I have instituted a "Guarantee" that if I don't win a person's first License Appeal, the next is FREE. This guarantee applies retroactively to all Appeals Filed or Heard in 2011]

In the end, I wind up with a Client who understands that my advice is based upon real know-how. They don't question me at every turn, looking for shortcuts. There are no shortcuts in these Appeals, period. Instead of having to explain why I say everything that I say, I have a Client in front of me who already knows how well things (don't) go when they try and play Lawyer. Usually, they take notes (I make it a point to provide a pad and pen for every Client at our meetings) and seek to clarify what they don't get right away, which is part of the process of doing this right.

Continue reading "Michigan License Restoration Appeals - Why Those Who Have First Tried on Their Own and Lost Make the Best Clients - Part 2" »

In any number of my previous articles about Driver's License Restoration, I have outlined the various risks involved in a "do-it-yourself" Appeal without a Lawyer. In the most recent of those articles, I also noted that I have a very strong belief that anyone thinking of doing a License Appeal on their own should absolutely go for it. In reconciling those two seemingly-contradictory positions, I pointed out that, in all honesty, the best and often easiest Clients to have are those who have tried on their own (or tried with some Lawyer who claims to "do" License Restorations) and lost, because they're "all ears."

Is that self-serving of me? Sure. But let me ask you this: Whatever it is you do for a living, would you prefer to have someone interact with you who defers to your knowledge and expertise in that area, and is glad for your advice, or would you rather work with someone who thinks they know as much as you do, or can at least figure it out on their own, and isn't sure if they want your help or not?

In this series of articles, I will explore this in more detail than before, so that the reader can see why I really believe this, and why it works so well for me.

In that regard, that's why I advise anyone considering doing their own Appeal to "go for it!" Seriously. And since I'm drawing back the curtain here, let me explain a bit more. After 20 years of doing what I do, I am at the peak of my game. I have enough cases to keep me busy, and I would be lying if I even pretended that I have the slightest desire to get on the phone with someone who needs or wants to be convinced that having a genuine Driver's License Restoration Lawyer is the better way to go about getting back on the road as opposed to trying it on their own, without a Lawyer.

Instead, I'd rather that they actually do try it on their own, then call me back after things don't quite work out the way they had hoped. Might there be a few really awesome cases that manage to win without a Lawyer? Absolutely. And good for them! Most, however, will learn a hard lesson, and will come to realize that the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" applies as much to "playing Lawyer" as is does to anything else.

As it turns out, a lot of those "do-it-yourselfers" will call me immediately after receiving a Denial of their Appeal, and want to talk about appealing that loss to a Circuit Court. For what it's worth, I don't do Circuit Court Appeals, and certainly would never consider one where someone represented themselves, or used another Lawyer. Here's why:

The "do-it-yourselfer" blunders into the process, usually with little or no understanding of the Laws that govern License Appeals (DAAD Rules), and often don't even know that the ultra-important Rule 13 exists, much less how it controls these Appeals and the decisions made about them. Thus, when they lose, they have no basis to understand why, much less to challenge the Hearing Officer's Denial as illegal. Instead can only complain about the result being "unfair," which is not any kind of basis for an Appeal.

Continue reading "Michigan License Restoration Appeals - Why Those Who Have First Tried on Their Own and Lost Make the Best Clients - Part 1" »