I had an underaged drinking ticket from when I was 17 and a speeding ticket from when I was 19. Both were expunged through classes, and I'm not even bothering to mention it in any of my applications.I think bringing up misdemeanors that have been expunged from your record through going to a class is a waste of their time to read. You're not going to fail the Bar character fitness test because you got a $250 underaged drinking ticket that was permanently removed from your record. That question is on the law school applications because they're worried about you not passing it come your 3L. My uncle spent 18 months in minimum security federal prison for tax evasion (I'm sure it was a felony) and he's still practicing in Pennsylvania where he was before the charges and is quite prosperous--the Bar doesn't care about meaningless infractions and neither do the law schools. If you've got criminal charges (murder, assault, etc...) they view that differently, but most everything else they overlook unless you're an Enron executive or have repeated fraud charges.
i agree with you, that law schools won't really care about minor criminal charges such as minors in possession. however, i think they would care if they specifically ask for you to reveal charges, even ones that were expunged, and you lie about it. like i said above, if the question simply states 'have you been convicted of a crime?' i am marking no. however, some schools (columbia, for example) say 'have you been convicted of a crime (include those which have been expunged or for which you have received a diversion)'. in those cases, i am using this addendum, and i suggest disclosing yours as well. like you said, i don't think the law schools are really going to care about an mip. but i do think they will care if we lie about it.
Jayhawk-If your diversion is like mine, the charges actually were never filed. In my case the charge were put on hold. If I complied, they were dropped. If I didn't they were persued. So I think you are okay. In my addendum, I was clear about charges being dropped. You should make sure, but I think you would be correct to say this.HTH
Quote from: mobell195 on November 16, 2004, 05:36:28 AMOne super-small thing: "...I have complied with all other conditions of the agreement, which includes not violating..." should be "include." (singular.) The subject of the phrase is conditions (plural), so should use plural verb.That is amazingly miniscule, but just in case...Very good point. Everything else is perfect. Why detract from that?
One super-small thing: "...I have complied with all other conditions of the agreement, which includes not violating..." should be "include." (singular.) The subject of the phrase is conditions (plural), so should use plural verb.That is amazingly miniscule, but just in case...
Page created in 0.43 seconds with 19 queries.