Articles in this series

  • EEBA Poll | Should Attorneys be Drug Tested?

6 responses to “EEBA Poll | Should Attorneys be Drug Tested?”

  1. Tweets that mention EEBA Poll | Should Attorneys be Required to Submit to Random Drug Testing? -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Evil Esq Bar Assoc, Evil Esq Bar Assoc. Evil Esq Bar Assoc said: @BobBlahBlawg Be sure to register your vote: http://bit.ly/hlWq3 [...]

  2. Astraea

    Because attorneys do not challenge the unConstitutionality of Drug Testing as 4th & 5th Amendment violations, they too should have random drug tests.

  3. Josh King

    I’m all for more accountability in the legal profession, but why would anyone think this is a good idea?

    - Booze and money problems are far bigger contributors to attorney misconduct than illegal drugs. Why not require attorneys to be teetotalers with large bank balances?

    - Drug tests reveal drug use; they don’t reveal addiction or impairment that affects performance.

    - Drug tests are expensive, and not terribly reliable. Any bar that has the resources to spend on drug testing would be far better off spending that money on more effective training/counseling, complaint investigation or disciplinary enforcement.

    - Finally, random drug testing by the government (and the bar IS the government for these purposes) is illegal except in very constrained circumstances – typically “safety-sensitive” positions. There’s nothing about the practice of law that makes it safety-sensitive. Yes, a doped-up attorney could cause harm, but so could a doped-up pizza delivery guy.

  4. Kevin

    Yes, I think lawyers should be used for drug testing.

    The genetic make up of lawyers is surprisingly similar to that of humans.

    By testing potentially dangerous drugs on lawyers before human trials, the pharmaceutical industry could avoid the ethical challenges (and bad publicity) that comes from doing drug tests on humans or lovable chimpanzees.

  5. Josh King

    Von Raab would apply here, where licensing is done by the state. Under Von Raab, the state’s interest in drug testing must be balanced against the attorney’s privacy concerns.

    And it’s not a close case here. The state doesn’t have a defensible enough interest in testing attorneys. Sure, drugged attorneys can do harm, but so can anyone, in any profession. Consider: The state would have a much stronger interest in randomly drug testing all licensed drivers. Do you think that would ever happen?

    Any bar considering this would be completely out to lunch. They’d be buying an expensive program of dubious effectiveness. That program would then be tied up for years in litigation. That litigation would likely end, per Von Raab, in the program being found unconstitutional. Again, not worthy of serious consideration by any real-world regulators.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words, name and web site identification in attribution.

Stalk the EEBA

Subscribe Via Email

Enter your email address:

Jurisdictions