Job Applications Lawyer: Fill & Download for Free

What’s the most critical mistake I’ve ever seen someone make in court?Failure to realize what the actual issue in dispute was. It’s a long and complicated story. I’m going to tweak the facts of the real case slightly in the interest of keeping the story manageable.The plaintiff had applied for a government job that required a security clearance. The job in question was one that the plaintiff had a statutory entitlement to, as long as he could pass the background check.The plaintiff had something in his background that he was afraid would disqualify him, so he lied on his job application. There was a question on the job application that specifically asked, “Have you ever …?” The plaintiff marked the answer “no.”The government employer learned the truth when it performed a background check on the applicant.The thing the plaintiff had lied about was not disqualifying. It was a common mistake that many people make.But the fact the plaintiff had lied on his application was disqualifying. The fact that he had deliberately concealed something embarrassing in his background rendered him vulnerable to blackmail.The plaintiff’s security clearance, and therefore his job application, was denied.He filed a lawsuit, claiming that he should have been hired for the job.The plaintiff’s lawyer, who was an idiot, never bothered to ask why the plaintiff’s security clearance had been denied. She jumped to the conclusion that he had been denied the security clearance because of the embarrassing thing in his past. It never occurred to her that the fact the plaintiff had lied on his application might be a problem.She spent six months litigating the issue of whether the problem in the plaintiff’s past was serious enough to warrant denying him a security clearance, when that wasn’t the problem at all.The case was heard by a three-judge panel. When the judges raised the issue and asked the plaintiff why he had lied on his job application, he claimed that he had never intentionally lied; he had simply forgotten about the problematic thing in his past. (It was not the sort of thing anybody would have forgotten doing.) Everybody in the room knew he was lying.Lying under oath was the worst thing this man could possibly have done. His behavior in the courtroom provided further confirmation that the government could not trust him.He lost the case.The sad thing is, if the case had been litigated properly, the plaintiff would have won. All he would have had to do was to walk into the courtroom and say, “I’m sorry I lied. It will not happen again.”The idiot lawyer cost her client his entire career.EDIT:I’ve received a few comments from Quorans who have placed the blame for the way this case turned out on the client, rather than the lawyer. As I stated in the second paragraph of my answer, I have grossly simplified the facts of the case in order to keep the story a manageable length.A more detailed version of the story — which I’m not going to give you, because the full version would take up at least ten times as much space as the version I’ve already given you — would make it clear that the lawyer was calling the shots in this case and her poor client was little more than a puppet. The lawyer was the one who came up with the brilliant trial strategy of litigating the wrong issue for six months. The lawyer was the one who advised her client to lie under oath.Yes, the guy shouldn’t have lied on his job application.News flash: He’s not the only job applicant in the history of the world who tried to conceal a minor misdeed in his past from a prospective employer. People who have histories of recreational marijuana use or juvenile records for shoplifting do this all the time.When this happens, any lawyer who has the brains of a turtle tells the client, “The problem isn’t that you smoked a little weed twenty years ago when you were in college. The problem is that you lied about it on your job application. ’Fess up, say you’re sorry, and promise the employer you won’t lie to them again.”This kind of situation occurs frequently enough that any competent employment lawyer ought to know how to address it. The only difference between the plaintiff who lost this case and the thousands of other applicants who committed the exact same misdeed and got hired anyway was the guy’s idiot lawyer.

“If charges are dropped and the arrest is expunged and you’re asked under oath if you have ever been arrested, do you answer yes or no?”You answer honestly. The honest answer to the question is “yes.”EDIT 10/8/19: Several weeks after I posted my original answer, the OP posted a comment indicating that what he is actually inquiring about is an expunged conviction, not an expunged arrest. I had suspected that this was the case all along. In light of the large number of people who have viewed this answer, I have decided to do a partial re-write addressing the issue of expunged convictions.You answer honestly. The honest answer to the question is “yes.”If you’re being asked the question under oath — as opposed to at a cocktail party or as part of a garden-variety job application — you’re probably being asked the question as part of a trial or deposition. A second situation in which you may have to answer a question about prior convictions would be an application for a state license or a job application for a position that requires a security clearance.The contexts in which you’re being asked about prior convictions under oath tend to be the exact same situations where the governing authority doesn’t recognize expungements.Scenario #1: The opposing attorney is trying to use your prior conviction for an impermissible purpose.Example: The opposing attorney is trying to use your prior conviction to discredit you.Using a prior conviction to imply that they’re a bad person violates the Rules of Evidence.Any lawyer with the brains of a turnip will realize that this is impermissible and will object. The judge will agree. Opposing counsel will not be allowed to ask the question at all.Scenario #2: The opposing attorney is trying to use the fact you were previously arrested/convicted for a permissible purpose.Example: The opposing attorney is trying to use the fact you were previously arrested to demonstrate that you’re familiar with police booking procedures.If whether or not you’re familiar with police booking procedures is relevant to the case, this is a permissible use of the evidence.In this case, it doesn't matter whether or not the charges were dropped. And it doesn’t matter whether the arrest was expunged. The only thing that matters is whether you know the procedure for booking arrestees at that particular police station.So the answer is “yes.”EDIT: I’ve received so many comments from nonlawyers who mistakenly believe that “expunged” means “disappeared as though it never happened” that I have decided to add an explanation of what expungement actually means to this answer.The statement below is taken from an information sheet produced by the state of California on expunged criminal convictions. The laws of most other U.S. states are similar. Please note the following points:Expungement does NOT mean that the conviction is wiped away, sealed, purged, or destroyed.There are certain circumstances under which you are still required to say yes, you have been convicted, even if it’s all been expunged.Expunged convictions can still be used as priors and strikes.In short, “expunged” does not mean “disappeared as though it never happened.”

I find this question really disturbing.If you are going to a job interview for a position as a lawyer, you have sworn (or shortly will swear) an oath of honesty. You shouldn’t be scamming an interview by trying to figure out “the best thing to say.”Answer the questions asked, frankly and truthfully. Like all job applicants, you’ll want to present yourself in a positive light, and that’s fine, but don’t fake “the best thing to say.”