8

THE STATE BAR OF CALI ORNIA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF T AL COUNSEL
SCOTT J. DREXEL,No. 656 0
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
RUSSELL G. WEINER, No. 4504
DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL CO
SEL
LAWRENCE J. DAL CERR ,No. 104342
ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, o. 104927
SUPERVISING TRIAL CO
SEL
SUSAN 1. KAGAN,No. 214 09
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSE
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94 05
Telephone: (415) 538-2345

Attorneys for the Committee

2
3
4
5
6
7

f Bar Examiners

10
THE STATE BAR COURT

11

REVIEW DEPARTMENT

12
13
14
15

In the Matter of

ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN

16
17
18
19
20

A
B
S
t=m= e
a
r A lica:nt.

+-

__

_________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 06-M-13755

OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
SUMMARY REVIEW

To: The Honorable J Ann Remke,Presiding Judge, the Associate Judges of the Review
Department of the State Bar

ourt,and Applicant Zachary B. Coughlin:

Since the Hearing De artment decision was-issued in thinnatter back on August 20,
2007,applicant has made va ious unsuccessful attempts to obtain review without paying the

21
transcript costs (either by ha ing the costs waived or by seeking summary review in a case that
22
23

clearly does not qualify).

By Order filed Octo

r 5, 2007, this Court ordered that the request for review would be

24
dismissed unless applicant p id the transcript costs within fifteen days.
25
By Order filed Nove
26
27
28

ber 27,2007,this Court dismissed the request for review.

On January 3,2007, fter applicant filed more papers,this Court issued an Order giving
applicant until January 14,2 08 to tender the costs.

Now,applicant has fil d for reconsideration again seeking summary review. That

1
2

ature of this proceeding.

motion is meritless,given the

Applicant has also su mitted a letter that apparently enclosed the transcript costs.

3
4

However,given that the letter was posted in Reno on January 14,2008 it is doubtful that the

check was received by the St e Bar Court Clerk prior to the expiration of the January 14,2008

deadline. If so,we recomme

January 3,2008 Order.

8
9

that the Court dismiss this review proceeding as provided in its

Also,applicant's chec

was not deiivered unequivocally. Rather,applicant's letter

requests that the check not be cashed "if there is no possibility that I will be certified for

10

admission to practice law in

11

Admission to Practice Law in California." Under Rule IX,an applicant must re-take the Bar

12

examination if he is not admi ed to practice within five years of taking the exam. Applicant

13

notes that he took the Bar Ex

14

stale. Even if he succeeds in his moral character proceeding,applicant would still have to

15

retake the Bar or obtain a wai er from the Committee.

alifornia considering Rule IX of the Rule [sic] Regulating

ination in July 2002. Thus,applicant's Bar results have become

ces,applicant apparently does not want his check cashed.

16

Under these circumst

17

Applicant was require to perfect his review request by September 14,2007 (rule
ar). It has been four additional months,and the transcripts have

18

301(A)(1),Rules Proc. State

19

still not been ordered. Altho gh applicant is entitled to a fair opportunity for review,the

20

Committee of Bar Examiners has a legitimate interest in completing these proceedings within a

21

reasonable period of time.

e,therefore, request that these proceedings be dismissed forthwith.

Respectfully submitted,

22

ORNIA
AL COUNSEL

23
24
25
Dated:
26
27
28

January

2008

B
R.

dman
g Trial Counsel
Attorneys for the Committee of Bar Examiners

DE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

CASE NUMBER: 06-M-13 55

I, the undersigned, over the a e of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place of

employment is the State Bar f California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
declare that I am not a party t the within action; that I am readily familiar with the State Bar of
California's practice for colle tion and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service; that in e ordinary course of the State Bar of California's practice,
correspondence collected and processed by the State Bar of California would be deposited with
the United States Postal Servo e that same day; that I am aware that on motion of party served,
service is presumed invalid i postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope or
package is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit. That in
accordance with the practice fthe State Bar of California for collection and processing of mail,
I deposited or placed for colI ction and mailing in the City and County of San Francisco, on the
date shown below, a true cop of the within
OPPOSITION TO REQUE T FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY REVIEW

11
12

in a sealed envelope placed r collection and mailing at San Francisco, on the date shown
below, addressed to:

14

Zachary R. Coughlin
945 West 12th Street
Reno, NV 89503

15

in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:

13

16
17

nla
I declare under penalty of per ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, on the date shown below.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED: January 18, 2008

SIGNED:

__
__________

Paula H. D'Oyen
Declarant