Despite all the legal finery and distinctions about all the things you must prove to get your license back, the truth is that there are, in most cases, really two things you need to prove to do that. It's not that the others don't matter, it's just that if you can prove the two we'll talk about, then the rest usually follows. The big two issues you must overcome are proving, first, that your alcohol problem is under control, and second, that it is likely to remain under control. Of these, the first is much easier. The second is where most of the trouble lies.

The first, and easier thing you have to prove is that your alcohol problem, if any, is under control. In simple terms, you have to prove that you have quit drinking alcohol. Note that I keep using the word prove. You simply cannot show up and bring your husband, wife, parents or best friend to say that you don't drink anymore. You have to prove this by clear and convincing evidence. To understand this, imagine you have to jump over a hurdle. If the hurdle is six inches high, you'd probably have no problem just stepping over it. Proving something by clear and convincing evidence is more like having to jump over a hurdle that is four feet high without knocking it over. It means your evidence has to jump to a fairly high standard, and if it does not, in the eyes of the Hearing Officer, then you will have essentially knocked the hurdle over rather than cleared it. In such a circumstance, you lose.

Abstinence means that you no longer drink. It means you have not consumed any alcohol, or, for that matter, "non-alcoholic" beer (a big no-no, as there is a trace of alcohol in that stuff, anyway) whatsoever. It means you must prove that you have quit drinking.

Quitting drinking is a lot like quitting smoking. You can think you have quit many times, but in fact, you can only "quit" once. The other times you merely stopped for a while. The Secretary of State wants to know, and you have to prove, that this time you really quit, as opposed to having simply stopped for the time being.

After the evaluation, the next thing you need to prove your case are letters of support. These are also called testimonial letters. The Secretary of State asks for up to 6 letters from people who make up a cross-section of the community in which you live. That means the letters should come from a broad range of people; family, friends, co-workers, fellow support-group members, and others. It means, more specifically, that you should not submit letters from just family, or just friends, or just co-workers.

If you were to just submit letters from your family, then the Secretary of State would wonder why no one else is aware of your recovery, like you friends or co-workers. If your letters were just from co-workers, then the Secretary of State could conclude that while it's clear you don't drink at work, maybe your family is unwilling to say you don't drink around them. You get the idea.

I believe it is extremely important that the lawyer help in this process. Very few of the letters I review before submitting them are good enough to go without some fixing-up. The reason is that, however well-intentioned the writer was, they do not clearly address the main issues the Secretary of State cares about: How long have you been abstinent from drinking, how does the writer know, and what have they observed?

Most often, the letters talk about what a good person the Petitioner is, how he or she has learned their lesson, and how difficult it is for them to get along without a license. Actually, none of that matters. In fact, such a letter completely fails to talk about how the Petitioner had his or her last drink, for example, two years ago, and has attended family functions or work parties and did not drink, and how that person has changed and grown since getting clean and sober. Such a letter can talk endlessly about what a charitable and kind person the Petitioner is, and how they really need a license, but it couldn't matter less.

Remember, the letter has to provide evidence about the Petitioner's having quit drinking, not their character. Even a letter, for example, written about a cranky and disagreeable co-worker-Petitioner that nobody likes, but which demonstrates that the for the last two years the co-worker-Petitioner who it is about no longer drinks alcohol at work functions and no longer goes to the bar after work, is a good letter, because it tends to prove that the person has quit drinking and has remained sober.

The most essential requirement for a letter of support is the writer's knowledge and observation of the Petitioner and their abstinence from alcohol. Letters from friends in Alaska who do not see the Petitioner at all don't help, because the best they can do is simply say that the Petitioner told the writer that he or she no longer drinks. In other words, those letters are just repeating self-reports of abstinence. Consider the following three examples of good letters:

I am Joe Smith's neighbor and have lived next door to him for the last 7 years. I knew Joe when he was drinking, and I have watched him grow as a person in the last two years since he gave up alcohol. Joe quit drinking, goes to AA, and is a much better friend now that alcohol is no longer in his life. We have been to neighborhood barbeques together, and I have never seen Joe drink alcohol since his last drunk driving arrest in July of 2005.

I didn't know Jane Doe until two years ago, when we became friends through our daughter's pre-school. I find it hard to believe that she ever had a drinking problem, because she is a responsible parent and a very good friend to me. We have gone out to dinner many times since we met, and she never consumes alcohol in my presence. She talks about her sobriety, and I know it is important to her.

I am Sam Soberman's wife. I know my husband has worked hard for his sobriety. I have driven him to many AA meetings, and I have watched as he completely eliminated alcohol from his life. We keep no alcohol in our home, and when we attend family functions, Sam always pours himself a diet Coke or coffee. Sam has not consumed alcohol for the last 3 years, since the night of his last drunk driving.

Now, compare the above letters, which include the essentials of how the writer knows the Petitioner, the length of time of the Petitioner's sobriety, and actual observations of the Petitioner not drinking alcohol, with the next two examples of bad letters that leave those things out:

I am Joe Smith's wife, and I write this letter on his behalf. Joe is a hard-working, responsible husband and father to our two children. Joe has struggled for the last year without a driver's license, and it's been very hard for us to keep things together because he always needs a ride to work. He had a great job opportunity last year, which he could not take because he doesn't have a license and that job would require him to drive during the day. Joe has really learned from his mistakes, and is truly sorry for the hardship he has brought on our family from his drunk driving cases. I know he would treasure the opportunity to be able to drive again and better himself and us, as well. I believe he deserves a second chance, and I hope you will give it to him. I am sure he will never make the same mistake again.

I am Jane Doe's best friend. I talk to Jane two to three times a week, even though I moved to Alaska three years ago. I was shocked to hear that she lost her license for drunk driving. I know how much that has affected her and her family. Jane tells me about her AA meetings, and I know, from talking to her, that she is committed to never drinking again. I hope you can help her get her life back on track and give her the opportunity to drive again.

The difference is that all of the information required for a successful letter is contained in the first three examples, and the last two contain absolutely none of it, even though they seem, at first glance, to be good letters. The letters have to count as evidence, and merely repeating what the Petitioner says, no matter how positive, is not evidence. The last two letters are just talk, and contain no observations of the Petitioner abstaining from alcohol, and no specification of the time that the Petitioner has been abstinent. The first three are winners, the last two sure losers.

Under the law, a Petitioner must prove that they have been abstinent from alcohol, depending on certain factors, for either 6 months or 1 year prior to their Request for a Hearing before the Secretary of State. In my office, I won't touch a case without at least 1 year of abstinence, and I feel anyone applying for a hearing with less time than that is completely wasting their time.

As I noted, proving this first issue, that you haven't had anything to drink in the last year or more, is the easier of the two issues. In this case, assuming it's true, it's more an case of getting your letters to prove just that point, and not go off about other things that do not matter at all.

In my office, I require the letters to first be submitted to me in draft form, so that I can then make corrections and suggestions. After reviewing them, I give the letters back to the client with my suggestions for improvement, and I'll ask for them back again, to make further corrections, if necessary. In certain cases, if a letter just cannot be made good enough, we may have to scrap it, and look for another, or just go without it. All letters submitted must help you prove your abstinence for the last year or more. If a letter does not do that, then it only hinders your case, and is best left out.

When I feel the letters are good enough, then both they and the Substance Abuse Evaluation can be submitted to the Secretary of State along with a Request of a Hearing. That means we will have formally applied for your license hearing, and have sent our evidence in for review. At that point, everything submitted needs to have been perfect, or you'll just be waiting to find out you lost.

Next, we'll talk about the toughest issue, the one I call the "Big Issue.” In this second and "big" issue, you must prove that your "problem is likely to remain under control." In truth, this means you have to prove that you are not likely to drink again, and that it is a safe bet that you have really "quit," as opposed to just having "stopped."

>> Next: The Big Issue - Your Problem is Likely to Remain Under Control