my criminal addendum

[LSATGuru]

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.     

[HankieB]

I was ticketed for curfew violation when I was 16, and MIP when I was 19.  Even though those are pretty minor incidences, I'm going to disclose them in my applications.  I don't think that it will hurt my chances of being accepted, and that way I know that I am covered when it comes to the bar.  Just in case. 

[jayhawk]

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.

[LSATGuru]

If you do "lie" about it and they actually check, the probability that they'd ever be able to find out about something that has been literally erased from your record is virtually zero (I know that that's the case in my County, I've checked my criminal record before and it's blank). 

If they were to ever figure out that I attended these classes that literally tens of thousands of people have gone to in just the last 5 years in my county alone, I would take it as a sign from God that I wasn't meant to go to that school, and would attend one of the schools that doesn't require you to disclose expunged offenses 

Just a side note--Columbia and other New York schools are so anal about even expunged offenses because the New York character fitness test there is apparently very rigid.  It even asks about things that were expunged.  I don't think any of the other states are like that, as they have far less criminals per capita than New York. 

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.

[seankenn]

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

[sordomudo]

We all figured there was a dangerous streak inside that wholesome Kansas girl.

[jayhawk]

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

i think i will call and check with the DA, just to make sure.  i know an mip is not a big deal, but for some reason, in my case, it really was.  including the diversion fee, i ended up paying almost $1000 for it.  also, i had to go to jail.  so it wouldn't surprise me if i get screwed on this too...

[alsgayorgy]

keep it short and sweet!

[matt1882]

I would say, actually, that keeping the plural would be preferable: you are including a CONDITION, after all (one condition among several conditions that INCLUDE that condition). If it is, however, the agreement that "includes" "not violating . . . " then what you are saying, essentially, is: "The agreement includes a gerund." Whereas if you make the subject "conditions," these conditions include a particular CONDITION i.e. "not violating . . ."

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...

Very good point.  Everything else is perfect.  Why detract from that?

[kernelgt]

I vote for including the offenses.  Look at it this way:  Most of these offenses that people have to divulge are no longer available in the public record.  Given that, it certainly won't hurt your chances of being accepted to the bar.  Therefore, it says something about your candor and integrity that you are not ashamed of saying, "yep, messed up, here are the basic details." 

I think most adcomms will look at it, say "non-issue," and move on.  A different story is if you have multiple offenses that form a pattern. After all, the adcomms are also trying to determine what type of campus citizen you will be.  But if it's just one offense, who cares?  The adcomms certainly won't.