Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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" »

Being a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer puts me in a specialty with only a handful, at most, of other Lawyers with a similar Practice concentration. It can, at times, be a bit lonely, in that I simply never find myself exchanging war stories with anyone who does as much of what I do for a living. Recently, I have developed a friendship with another Restoration Lawyer a number of Counties away, but aside from her, there's really no one else with whom I can compare notes.

That's not to say that I don't receive my fair share of inquiries from other Lawyers who find this blog, and my website, and contact me with a question or two. However, in those situations, our experience isn't nearly as lateral as it is vertical.

But I'm not complaining. I get time enough for the normal Professional contact when I'm in the back room of some Courthouse, surrounded by Prosecutors and other Defense Lawyers as I handle a DUI, or some other Criminal case.

Yet this got me to thinking about why being a License Restoration Lawyer is so specialized, and wondering what, if anything, is so different about my membership in this ultra small group, beyond the extensive experience I have handling and winning License Appeals?

The answer, it seemed to me, is that I have a deep and detailed knowledge and understanding of the concepts of addiction, alcoholism, and the whole process of Recovery. This subject, at least for me, has been a field of study in which I have engaged for nearly 20 years.

When we look at those Attorneys who are Patent Lawyers, we find that the vast majority of them have engineering, or similar backgrounds. There probably isn't a Patent Lawyer out there, or certainly not many, who earned their College Degree in English, or Sociology. They have to know the mechanical workings of the things they are trying to Patent, and an engineering, or similar background (like chemistry for someone Patenting drugs) is more or less a basic, foundational requirement to work in that field. In a very real way, they have to understand how the Law applies to a whole other discipline.

For the same reason, Tax Lawyers have backgrounds in Taxation.

At the heart of any License Appeal lie the issues of alcoholism (and/or addiction) and Recovery. It is one thing to understand that those issues are present, and quite another to understand them in depth. In other words, just like Patent Law, being a good License Restoration Lawyer means applying the Law to a whole other discipline.

Continue reading "Why Being a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer is so Specialized" »

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 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" »

In part 1 of this article, we began our examination of the Diagnosis section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation that is a required part of the Driver's License Appeal process. In this second part, we'll continue that examination by first narrowing our focus a bit and zooming in on what are often called "self-validating" or "test-taking attitude" scores, and then looking at the more general role of the Diagnosis section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation in a License Appeal.

As I noted in the part 1 and part 2 of the previous article regarding Testing Instruments, the most commonly used test for License Appeal Substance Abuse Evaluations is the SASSI-3 (or simply SASSI) Test. Unlike the MAST Test, the SASSI calls for no discretion in the scoring of the Test. However, as we noted in our discussion of the SASSI in that previous set of articles, the SASSI has a number of "self-validating" questions that ultimately result in a "Defensiveness" score. Depending on that score, the overall test results are determined to be more, or less, reliable. The higher the Defensiveness score, the less reliable the SASSI Test results. Of course, the lower that score, the more reliable any such results are determined to be.

If this was as easy as consistently dealing with low Defensiveness scores, then there would be no need for this discussion. However, a sizable chunk of people wind up with Defensiveness scores that, while not high enough to completely invalidate the Test scores, do call them into question. This leaves the test results in need of "interpretation." This means that the Evaluator has to arrive at a Diagnosis based upon not only the Test scores, but his or her experience, disposition and training as a Substance Abuse Counselor. It means, in short, that the Diagnosis is not completely determined by objective standards, but also contains an inescapable element of analytical subjectivity.

Beyond being able to analyze any such Diagnosis independently, it is even more important to know how the DAAD will "see" it. No matter how favorable any such Diagnosis might first appear, if it can, or will be doubted by the DAAD Hearing Officers, or otherwise not automatically accepted by them as inherently reliable, then the result will be a Denial of a License Appeal.

Remember, DAAD Rule 13, which governs License Appeals, mandates that the Hearing Officer "shall not" issue any driving privileges unless the person Appealing proves his or her case by "clear and convincing evidence." This means that if the Hearing Officer has any unresolved question or questions about the evidence presented in support of the Appeal, the person will lose. Therefore, a questionable diagnosis will in turn lead to the Hearing Officer declaring the Substance Abuse Evaluation to be "questionable" or "insufficient," and the whole Appeal goes down the drain.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - The Diagnosis in a Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 2" »

In the previous 2-part article, we began a rather detailed examination of the "Testing Instruments" section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation that must be completed and filed as part of any Driver's License Appeal. In that article, we noted that, quite logically, the result of that Alcohol Evaluation Test is a "Diagnosis." This article will bring that whole "Diagnosis" section under the lens for another in-depth analysis. Part 1 and part 2 of the preceding article should be read as a pre-requisite to this one. In this article, we'll analyze the Diagnosis that results from whatever Test is given, and analyzed in the prior set of articles.

These "fine-tooth comb" type of articles are for people, like me, who are interested in details. Within the body of the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog, I have all kinds of articles that range from a summary overview of License Appeals, to a more specific analysis of the process, all the way to articles like these, which provide a nearly microscopic analysis of just one component of that process. As I noted before, I find that many of my Clients are interested in the fine points and minutia, and that's a good thing. Beyond the mere desire and willingness to learn, this helps provide me with a Client base that is considerably more well-read and intelligent than average.

Interestingly, if not ironically, the Diagnosis section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation comes before the Testing Instruments section. This is a little bit of the-cart-before-the-horse in terms of layout, but beyond being a bit illogical, it does not change the fact that the Diagnosis is the result of whatever Alcohol Assessment is administered.

The range of possible Diagnoses is not particularly broad. Essentially, after taking an Alcohol Assessment Test, a person can only get 1 of 3 rather general diagnoses:

1. "no diagnosis" (meaning no alcohol problem),
2. "alcohol abuse," or
3. "alcohol dependence."

Within these broader categories, there are a few sub categories: A person can be either an early, or late-stage alcohol abuser; alcohol dependent, or chronically (meaning late stage, or longstanding) alcohol dependent. These sub-categories are seldom used in License Appeal Substance Abuse Evaluations, however, so we'll omit any discussion of them.

In the real world, a "no diagnosis," meaning "no alcohol problem" diagnosis almost never occurs. In fact, even if such a diagnosis were reached in any particular case, the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) would have grave doubts about it. This is because it is pretty much assumed that anyone with 2 or more DUI's has some kind of alcohol problem. This means that there are really only 2 plausible and realistic diagnoses: Alcohol Abuse, or Alcohol Dependence.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - The Diagnosis in a Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 1" »

In part 1 of this article, we began examining the Testing Instruments section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation used in Driver's License Restoration Appeals. We'll pick up where we left off, shifting from a more general inspection to some of the more important specifics of this section.

License Appeals are decided by Hearing Officers in the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD). In my Practice, I have ALL of my cases heard in the Metro-Detroit DAAD Office in Livonia. I know each of the Hearing Officers there very well. Having been in front of each countless times, I have likewise come to know that all of them have a very good understanding of the whole Alcohol Assessment process, and several know more about these Assessments than a person could ever imagine. It is, after all, what they do all day. Even the busiest, most senior Judge will see only a fraction of the alcohol cases that will come before any DAAD Hearing Officer. To put it bluntly, they are experts at this.

Because of their expertise, the Hearing Officers not only know how to read a Substance Abuse Evaluation and the specific Testing Instrument used in any case (and the ACTUAL Test a person took, and their actual Results sheet MUST be attached to the Substance Abuse Evaluation), but they also know how to look for anomalies between any such test, and the other information or conclusions presented or reached within the Substance Abuse Evaluation form itself. Moreover, they can "sniff out" an unusual test, or test result, or any information within the Substance Abuse Evaluation that seems inconsistent with a person having racked up 2 or more DUI's.

This means I have to tread carefully around this facet of preparing my Client for the Substance Abuse Evaluation. Too much attention will trip the "over-prepared" alarm. Not enough preparation can result in all kinds of problems. Let's be honest for a moment; all of us, from on school days onward, have had to take it on the chin as a result of not being prepared enough for something. Your License Appeal is not the situation in which to relive that sinking feeling.

Beyond the local Clinic I prefer (which as noted I the first part of this article, uses the SASSI-3 Test), many Evaluators use the MAST Test. This test is often used by Courts in DUI cases, and is relatively short. It is, quite frankly, easy to prepare for, and easy to do well on. Unlike the SASSI, the MAST does not have any kind of "defensiveness" score. In a DUI case, I can make sure a Client scores as low as possible on this test, sparing them all kinds of time sitting in Counseling sessions, Classes, and singing "kumbaya " with their new DUI friends.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Appeals - The Alcohol Screening Test, or "Testing Instrument" - Part 2" »

An inherent part of my Practice, as a Driver's License Attorney, is preparing my Clients for their Substance Abuse Evaluation. After that, I must review the completed Substance Abuse Evaluation to make sure it is both Legally adequate (meaning it contains everything it must), and favorable (meaning it helps the Client win the License Appeal). This preparation, which takes place at my first meeting with a new Client, takes about 3 hours. Once the Evaluation has been completed, both my Ann (my Senior Assistant), and I, will go over it with a fine-tooth comb.

I have covered some of the prerequisite requirements for a good Substance Abuse Evaluation in other articles within the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog. In this article, we're going to focus on one specific aspect of this Evaluation, the Testing Instrument. This will be a long, highly-detailed article, and will be broken into 2 parts.

Many of my Clients have a keen interest in exploring every facet of the License Restoration process as they do their homework, and that, in my opinion, is a good thing. For those not interested in the minutia of all that's involved, however, I have a few articles that simply overview the License Appeal process. This article will appeal to those who are more "detail people" rather than those who simply want to call my Office, find out if they qualify, make an appointment, and rely upon my guarantee that I'll win your License Appeal, or your next is free.

The "Testing Instrument" part of the Substance Abuse Evaluation is actually a section of the form in which the Evaluator gives the person being evaluated a written Alcohol Screening Test, and thereafter "scores" it.

The "score," or result of whichever specific Testing Instrument is used is a Diagnosis. This is really a fancy way of determining the degree of, or "staging" a person's alcohol problem. This makes sense: Take a screening test, and you get a Diagnosis. Examining and explaining the resultant Diagnosis will be the subject of a separate article.

In a way, having to take a written Alcohol Screening Test as part of the overall Substance Abuse Evaluation is sort of like taking a test within a test. This can more clearly be understood by remembering back to a person's DUI cases. As part of the DUI process, after a Plea has been entered, but before a person is Sentenced, they have an interview with a Probation Officer, and part of that interview process (technically called a PSI, or Pre-Sentence Investigation) is having to take a written Alcohol Screening Test.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Appeals - The Alcohol Screening Test, or "Testing Instrument" - Part 1" »

In part 1 of this article, we began our overview of the importance of the Substance Abuse Evaluation in a License Restoration Appeal. In this 2nd part, we'll continue that overview by examining how a Substance Abuse Evaluation in a License Appeal must meet 2 threshold requirements: First, that is "legally adequate," and second, that it is "favorable."

I noted that part of my motivation in writing this article was the frustration I feel when I see a Substance Abuse Evaluation that hasn't been done properly. This really means that a Substance Abuse Evaluation fails to meet either of the 2 requirements it must meet in order to be deemed "good."

First, and foremost, a Substance Abuse Evaluation must be "legally adequate" in the eyes of the Secretary of State. Take a look at the Form. Every one of those lines and boxes require very specific information. The only requirement for the person completing that form is that they be Professionally Licensed to administer and score an alcohol assessment, and make a DSM-IV diagnosis. In other words, being a Licensed Substance Abuse Counselor is all that's needed to sign off on this form.

Notice that the form does NOT request tons of information. Instead, it requests very specific information. Yet, of the many cases which come to me after having tried and lost on their own, or with a Lawyer who claimed to "do" License Restorations, a fair number of them feel that more information is better. I've literally seen 3 and 4 extra pages of information attached to a losing Evaluation. In most of them, beyond including lots of useless details, the exact, specific information requested by the form was left out!

A legally adequate Substance Abuse Evaluation provides exactly the requested information sought on the form. Anything more is a waste of ink and space. In order to know what the Secretary of State really wants, a Counselor must prepare these Evaluations on a regular, on-going basis, and then get feedback from the subject of the evaluation regarding a win, or loss. In other words, without seeing how those evaluations are "evaluated" by the Secretary of State, the person doing them really can have no idea of whether they're getting it right, or wrong. Even if they manage to get it right, that should be the product of knowing what's being sought, rather than sheer luck.

Thus, "legally adequate" means providing the exact, specific information the Secretary of State wants, in the right place, on the Substance Abuse Evaluation Form. If a Substance Abuse Evaluation is not "legally adequate" because it is deficient in some regard, then the Appeal is lost. Nothing can save it. Game over, in other words.

However, submitting a "legally adequate" Substance Abuse Evaluation does not win, nor come close to winning, a License Appeal. It just means you haven't struck out.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - The Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 2" »

In my numerous articles about Driver's License Restoration, I have examined the process of getting back on the road in fine detail. In many of those articles, I have talked about the role of the Substance Abuse Evaluation and how important it is. In this article, we'll take another look at this first, and utterly critical step in a License Appeal. This is a deep subject. Still, even a somewhat superficial overview will be informative. To do such an overview justice, we'll break the article into 2 parts.

Part of my motivation to write this article is the fact that the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Appeal and Assessment Division (DAAD), which overseas all aspect of License Appeals, has recently revised the Substance Abuse Evaluation Form. The other part of my motivation is a sense of frustration at the fact that so many Counselors and Therapists who have the academic and professional credentials to fill out and sign this form DO NOT have sufficient experience to know specifically what information the Secretary of State needs and wants, and what information, while perhaps interesting, does nothing to help a case.

Part of the problem I've seen with Evaluations that I've not a hand in obtaining is the omission of specific, required information. This is sometimes compounded by the inclusion of lots of other, irrelevant information. We'll discuss this a bit more as we talk about the 2 threshold requirements for a Substance Abuse Evaluation in a License Appeal; that it be "legally adequate," and that it be "favorable."

In response to simply not getting the information it needs to decide a License Appeal, the Secretary of State has recently revised the Substance Abuse Evaluation Form. Instead of just leaving blank lines under the Prognosis section, the new Form actually has check boxes so that it gets an actual Prognosis, rather than a discussion about one not actually written. It is noteworthy that the new Form has a check box for a "Guarded" Prognosis, and omits one for "Very Good."

The same thing has happened to the section for Diagnosis. Rather than hope an evaluator will give a DSM-IV diagnosis, the Secretary of State has created check boxes for all those that are relevant to an alcohol problem.

The reason for this whole revision is that too many people who have the Professional credentials to complete an Evaluation try their hand at it, even though they don't have the requisite experience. My Law License does not prohibit me from taking on a complicated Medical Malpractice case. My lack of training and experience in that field means I should not.

Even with these changes, the fact remains unchanged that there are relatively few Counselors who have a thorough understanding of the License Restoration process. For that matter, there aren't a lot of Lawyers who have that understanding, either.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - The Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 1" »