Letters of Support for Michigan License Restoration Appeals: What Works and What Doesn’t

Letters of support play a critical role in Michigan driver’s license restoration appeals, but they are also one of the most common reasons otherwise viable cases are denied.

Many applicants assume that letters are simply character references or general statements of support. Under Rule 13, that assumption is wrong. Letters of support are not intended to show that a person is likable, hardworking, or deserving. They are intended to corroborate sobriety, lifestyle change, and risk reduction.

When letters fail to do that, they do more harm than good.

Letters of Support Are Evidence, Not Testimonials

In a Rule 13 license restoration appeal, letters of support are treated as evidence. Hearing officers read them critically, looking for corroboration of the petitioner’s claims about abstinence, behavior, and daily life.

Letters that read like generic praise or advocacy pieces often undermine credibility. Hearing officers are not persuaded by statements that the petitioner is a “good person” or “deserves a break.” Those concepts are legally irrelevant.

What matters is whether the letter demonstrates personal knowledge of sobriety and meaningful change.

The Minimum Number of Letters Required Under Rule 13

Rule 13 authorizes the hearing officer to require corroboration from not fewer than three independent sources regarding the petitioner’s behavior with respect to alcohol and controlled substances. In practice, submitting fewer than three credible letters of support places a restoration appeal at immediate risk.

Independence matters. Multiple letters that repeat the same general observations or rely on secondhand information do not satisfy the rule. Each letter should reflect the writer’s own, personal knowledge of the petitioner’s sobriety and behavioral change.

Independence refers to the source of the observation, not the number of pages submitted. Letters that derive their information from the same underlying source, shared narrative, or secondhand reporting may be discounted even if written by different people.

While additional letters may be submitted, quantity beyond the minimum does not compensate for lack of specificity, credibility, or consistency.

You may hyperlink “Rule 13” once in the first sentence if you choose, but do not quote the rule.

How Letters Fit into the Rule 13 Burden of Proof

Rule 13 requires clear and convincing evidence that substance abuse problems are under control and unlikely to recur. Letters of support are intended to support those findings by confirming what the petitioner claims in the substance use evaluation and testimony.

When letters align with the evaluation and testimony, they strengthen the record. When they conflict, they raise doubt. Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, doubt results in denial.

Letters do not exist in isolation. They are read as part of the entire evidentiary record.

Common Letter Problems That Lead to Denial

Many restoration appeals fail because the letters introduce uncertainty rather than clarity. Common problems include letters that do not identify how long the writer has known the petitioner, do not explain how often the writer interacts with the petitioner, or do not establish that the writer has observed sobriety directly.

Another frequent issue is overstatement. Letters that claim perfection, absolute certainty, or unrealistic guarantees often appear unreliable. Hearing officers expect honesty, not advocacy.

Letters also fail when they focus on events that predate sobriety, emphasize past character traits, or describe changes without connecting them to abstinence and risk management.

Personal Knowledge Matters More Than Relationship Status

Who writes a letter matters less than what the writer actually knows. Letters from employers, family members, or close friends carry weight only if they demonstrate real, ongoing contact and firsthand knowledge of the petitioner’s sobriety.

A letter from someone who sees the petitioner weekly and can describe observed behavior is more valuable than a letter from someone with a prestigious title who has limited contact.

Hearing officers look for specificity, not status.

Consistency With the Substance Use Evaluation Is Critical

One of the most damaging mistakes in restoration cases is submitting letters that contradict the substance use evaluation. Inconsistencies about abstinence dates, drinking history, or relapse risk are red flags.

For example, if an evaluation states a specific abstinence date but letters describe alcohol use after that date, the credibility of the entire case is undermined. Even unintentional discrepancies can be fatal.

Letters should reinforce the evaluation, not rewrite it.

Why “Character Letters” Are the Wrong Model

In criminal sentencing or mitigation contexts, character letters often focus on reputation, work ethic, and general moral qualities. License restoration cases are different.

Rule 13 does not ask whether a person is deserving. It asks whether the risk of future alcohol-related driving is acceptably low. Letters that follow a general character-letter model often fail to address that question at all. This mismatch is a common cause of denial.

Effective letters of support describe observable change, not conclusions. Hearing officers give weight to letters that identify a clear sobriety date and then explain how the writer has personally observed sustained abstinence and lifestyle change since that time.

Specific examples matter. Letters are stronger when they describe concrete behaviors, such as participation in recovery activities, accountability to others, changes in social routines, or firsthand observations of how the petitioner responds to situations that previously involved alcohol or drugs.

General statements of support or character, even when sincere, do not substitute for detailed, experience-based observations that corroborate the petitioner’s testimony and evaluation.

Quantity Does Not Replace Quality

Submitting many weak letters does not compensate for the absence of strong ones. In fact, a stack of generic letters often makes the record worse by increasing the likelihood of inconsistency or exaggeration.

A small number of clear, specific, credible letters is far more effective than a large volume of vague endorsements.

Strategic Preparation Prevents Letter-Based Denials

Letters of support should never be an afterthought. They should be prepared deliberately, reviewed carefully, and assessed in light of the entire record.

Submitting letters that undermine credibility can do lasting damage. Once a denial occurs, those weaknesses become part of the record and may resurface in future hearings.

At Barone Defense Firm, we evaluate letters as evidence, not accessories. When letters do not support the Rule 13 burden, we advise against filing until the record is coherent and credible.

How Letters Fit into the Overall Restoration Strategy

Letters of support are one piece of a larger evidentiary framework that includes the substance use evaluation, testimony, and timing.

For a complete overview of how these elements work together under Rule 13, see our Michigan Driver’s License Restoration page.

FAQs