Now Accepting New Clients!

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017

A picture is faded of a driver in the car behind the wheel with a bottle of beer in their hand.When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this depends on a number of factors, including how much work you have missed because you were in jail and whether you drive for a living, to name a few.

So while your job prospects may be unclear after a DUI arrest, you should be ready for the following implications.

Your Insurance May Affected

Just like when you have other moving violations that may not necessarily be classified as a misdemeanor, your insurance company may raise your rates significantly. Expect an increase in your rates - this increase may come immediately, but more likely will take effect with your next renewal. If your policy is terminated, you will likely have to obtain SR-22 insurance, which may be particularly expensive.

You May Miss Some Time from Work

Waiting to post bail is a process, and the authorities are in no hurry to get you on your way. This is because the police will likely run your name through several state criminal databases to ensure you are not subject to any outstanding criminal warrants.

Your Career Could be Affected

If you drive for a living, a DUI conviction could have a substantial effect on your career; particularly if your employer has a strict policy against drunk driving offenses. So if you are a commercial truck driver or bus driver, it is essential that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney representing you to protect your livelihood.

Partner with an Experienced Drunk Driving Defense Attorney on Your Case

We have all made mistakes. Know there are severe consequences for drinking and driving. The preceding is not intended to be legal advice. Contact an experienced DUI defense attorney, like those at Aldrich Legal Services, for additional information and advice. Give our team a call today.

MICHIGAN WILLS/TRUSTS 33: Trustees required to provide notice informing recipients that they may challenge the validity of a trust and the period allowed for bringing such a challenge.

The notice sent clearly advised her that if she wanted to contest the validity of the Trust in a judicial proceeding, the law required her to do so within six months from the date of the letter. Nothing in the statute requires a trustee to inform the recipients of the specific legal consequences of not acting during the time allowed.

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 97: The court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff.

The trial court found that plaintiff sustained her burden of establishing that a constructive trust was necessary to prevent defendant from being unjustly enriched. Accordingly, the court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendant to convey his interest in the property to plaintiff.

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 95: Property owners did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves.

When the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred. However, in this case A and J did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000