I’m scheduled for a security clearance interview in 2026-January.
I asked my attorney to be present for the interview. At first DCSA Investigator said no but I pushed the issue and now I’m allowed to bring my attorney with me to the interview.
I told my coworkers about it and one guy suggested I share the information here so everyone will be aware that this is possible.
I recommend everyone to do this.
May I ask why you think that’s necessary?
I was thinking the same exact thing.
I’m just a ghetto street investigator, but I’ve got the rule book in front of me and bringing your attorney to the interview is not permitted. Your investigator is making a serious mistake if he permits this unless it’s some sort of labor union thing, and even then highly questionable.
More broadly I suspect that by doing this you’ll be putting you and your case under a microscope. Most people are fairly straight edge and for those folks the sit-down interview is effectively a formality. But the guy who absolutely positively refuses to sit for his interview without counsel present? A whole lotta people are gonna take notice in ways that maybe you didn’t want.
Whatever you’re thinking, rethink it.
I had someone request to bring an attorney. I said no, not permitted. They took it all the way up the chain and it still came back as a no. Not sure why this investigator is allowing this.
He said it got approved from his chain of command so it’s on him.
The issue is a protective order from the court and I’m not letting some crazy girl jam me up.
I’ll give an update after the interview.
Not a good look at all. For contracts I worked on, this was explicitly not permitted, but I understand your investigator eventually said OK. My concern is that this will not help you one bit, and may hurt your case.
What’s the lawyer gonna do? Answer for you? That’s prohibited. Tell you not to answer a question? Maybe not prohibited, but that would be in the report and does make an adjudicator wonder.
Re your investigator saying he got it approved by his chain of command - more power to you, but my (limited) understanding is that having an attorney or bargaining unit rep has to be approved by the highest highest levels, levels far removed from workaday investigators and their workaday line managers. I encourage both you and the investigator to print out and retain copies of this “approval” to include the name of the person blessing your attorney’s presence! I know this stinks of CYA but I can’t emphasize enough how irregular this is and how it’s adverse to the plain language of the printed rules provided by DSCA governing investigator conduct.
Fortunately it has been a long time since I had to go through a subject interview… but do they read you your rights, you know, “anything you say can be held against you in a courtroom?”
If not, then I can’t see how having a lawyer can possibly be of any benefit at all.
guessing he has something to hide.
The protective order and other documents filed with the court already say what they’re going to say. The same goes for whatever testimony is provided by “some crazy girl,” to use your words. You can’t change any of that.
Your interview with your investigator is your chance for you to say whatever you have to say, really without limitation. Regarding the circumstances of the protective order there’s really no boundaries on what the investigator can ask. I can see how it would be useful to role-play a mock interview ahead of time with someone like a lawyer asking adversarial questions. But as someone else asked: what exactly is the benefit for you here? What’s the play? If you think your attorney is going to instruct the investigator what the scope of questioning is or otherwise drive the interview - you are sadly mistaken.
Have you run this by your HR office or FSO? Plenty of people have protective orders lodged against them that they think are bogus. Just give your side of the story - truth is the best defense even if you engaged in actual misconduct. Own it, be totally candid. Attempting to bring your lawyer into the room is crazytown stuff and, as I’ve said, likely going to weigh against you at the end of the day.
IRS Union Reps love pulling this and pushing their weight around. The union rep lost.
You never talk to someone with powers of arrest without an attorney who will also function as a witness as to what was said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
or he is just smart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
You think background investigators can arrest people? I assure you we cannot.
I’m not willing to self incriminate myself.
Having my attorney there is an insurance policy that if the interview starts to go south for me it will end and I won’t feel trapped in the interview.
I understand that I can refuse to answer questions but having my attorney there will enable me to have someone stop the interview.
And having a 3rd party to witness the interview on my behalf isn’t a bad thing.
ummm… you can stop the interview yourself any time you want. I’m not saying DON”T bring an attorney. Just saying that a BI is not a law enforcement officer and It’s not an interrogation. In fact, I use it as an opportunity to ask the BI questions and get things out in the open so I can discuss with an expert resource.
Also, in case you weren’t aware, you can absolutely talk to your FSO, off the record, any time you want if you have questions or concerns before the interview. That’s their job. They will tell you what to watch out for and when to stop the interview if needed.
It depends. If your polygrapher or the person investigating you has law enforcement powers they most certainly can. Why would you subject yourself to an interview that can torpedo your career without a witness to what you actually said, since they will not let you make a recording nor will they give you a copy of such a recording if they make one due to “national security” concerns.
The best person to stop an inappropriate interview or line of questioning is your attorney. Hard Stop. You are under pressure being interviewed coupled with the fact you want to job. If you stop the interview guess who isn’t getting the job. The best way to stop the inappropriate questions from happening is to have an attorney sitting next to you. That is why they don’t want you bringing one.
Most of these jobs are not worth having, and risking a permanent black mark on your record in scattered castles or JPAS because you want a national security job so much that you are willing to throw caution to the wind is not worth the risk. Polygraphers lie all the time without punishment. Using the Russian search engine Russian Search Engine Yandex search for secret service polygraph. It will be the number one hit. The levels of police corruption in America are so outrageous the police don’t even hide it and the courts sanction it.