Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

SUMMARY OF HEARING

BEFORE THE COMMlTTEE ON MORAL CHARACTER AND FITNESS

f'\ THE MA TIER OF THE ADMISSION OF

,
1\ ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN TO PRACTICE

LAW IN THE STATE OF NEVADA

II

)
)
)
)
)
)

SUMMARY OF HEARING
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE

The heanng on the moral character and fitness of applicant ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN
'J

10

\I ("COUGHLIN") in the above-captioned matter came before the Committee on Moral Character and
IF tness ("Committee") of the Board of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of Nevada on March 1, 2002
\ and June 21,2002. COUGHLfN, having been duly noticed, appeared pro se for the first hearing and
appeared with counsel, Peter Christiansen, Esq., fo r the second hearing. COUGHUN waived any

\1 deficiency in the notices and indicated he was prepared to go forward at each hearing.
~1

(See Exhibits

and #4).

The duly Impaneled hearing panel orthe Committee was composed of Michael S. Rowe. Esq.,

\\

16 , Ch~llr and Conuninee members, Kevin Kelly, Esq., Lori Story, Esq.> and Gregory Brown, M.D. Also
.

prese~t

was Patlice J. Eichman, Esq., Director of Admissions and stat A. Cate, Admissions

, In...csug:;tor.
19

During the March 1, 2002 hearing, the Committee determined, after consultation with their
~xpcrt. Dr. Brown, that COUGHLIN was not in an appropriate state of mind to continue wilh the

21

proceedings. COUGHLIN agreed to the continuance and the Committee provided him with the names

22

of attorneys who would counsel and represent him on a pro bono basis.

23

The Committee reconvened on June 21, 2002, and after having heard the testimony and
reviewed the evidence from both hearings, the Committee determined that COUGHLIN has mel Ius

".rdt", as imposed by SCR 5l(4) by clear and convincing evidence in that he has demonstrated that he

.......

~~~--~c::~

is of good moral cl
t
d'
..
larac er an IS willing and able to abide by the high ethical standards required of
auomeys in the state erN
I

to the State Bar of Nevada'

"d

'

..

,provi ed, however. said adrrusslOn shall be conditioned on and subject to

the tenns and conditio

-+

d Th
eva a.
crefore, the Committee recommends that COUGHLIN be admiued

ns

f d . .
.
a miSSion as set forth In the Recommendation and Consent Agreement

,(Agreement") attached as Exhibit "At> in accordance with SCR 49.7.

o '

The Committee offers the following Summary in support of its Recommendation.

,\

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1-)

COUGHLIN is a 26 year-old, single male who graduated from the William S. Boyd Schoo! of
,Law m December 0[2001.

,1

2.

COUGHLIN is employed as a law clerk with the Las Vegas law fiml of Perry and Spann.

12

3.

COUGHLIN filed his 200 1 application for admission to the State Bar of Nevada on February 2,

200t and was successful on IheJuly2001 examination .

. i -+

4.

Of concern to the Committee are COUGHLIN's criminal charges, the incidents at the law

I:'>

school, the employment tellnLnation and his mental stability.

16

5.

1-

officer, and obstructing a police officer. With respect to the charges, COUGHLIN testified that he

I~.

entered a movie theater without purchasing a ticket and had been in the theater for approximately one

19

hour when theater personnel approached him and asked him to step outside. COUGHLIN testified that

.:!o

mstead of following the personnel out of the theater, he ran. The theater personnel chased him OUI of

2t

the theater and pursued him down the sidewalk. At some point, the Las Vegas Police became involved

22

in tht: chase. COUGHLfN testified that the police tackled and handcuffed him and took him to the

23

Clark County Detention Center, where he spent the night in jail.

24

6.

In October of 200 I, COUGHLIN was arrested for evading a police officer, resisting a police

COUGHLIN testified that while he understood that going into tbe movie theater without

1I1'1lI'cb'~m,g a ticket was dishonest and wrong, he was surprised that the theater personnel and the police

n: s

chased him for such a long distance and then took him to jail. COUGHLIN stated that he was later
'I

ad\"Jsed that the theater personnel suspected him of further criminal activity, including stealing candy

I,i from the concession COunter.

COUGHLIN stated that it was his understanding that, after his arrest, the

pj Ibee realized that it had been a case of mistaken identity with regard to the other criminal activity.

Although COUGHLIN was arrested on three charges, the complaint issued against him

\-

Contamed only one count of resisting arrest.

COUGHLIN testified that he contacted the Assistant

Distncl Anomey in charge of his case and it was agreed that the charge would be dismissed on January

17,2002. provided that COUGHLIN did not incur any further criminal problems.

II'

COUGHLfN complied with the above condition and the charge was dismissed.

II'

-,

The second area of concem for the Committee was COUGHLIN's tennination from his

employment with the Boyd School of Law Library. COUGHLIN testified that he was emp loyed at {he
Ibrary from October 1999 through May of 2000 working approximately twelve hours a week and
earrung 57.00 an hour.
10.

;4
"

16

COUGHLIN stated that in May of 2000, his 1990 Ford Taurus broke down and he needed

money to pick his girlfiiend up from the airport. COUGHLIN took $10.00 from the library change

1\ drawer and left a signed IOU in the drawer.

COUGHLIN stated that he replaced the $10.00 the next

1-

day.

jK

11

19

performed his duties appropriately. including misplacement of address labels on envelopes and sloppy

20

photocopying.

21

I Z.

22

Law. In sununer of2001, COUGHLIN was enrolled in two classes, including Cyber Law, whieh was

23

taught by Las Vegas attorney Mark Tratos. A final paper was one requ irement of the class and Mr.

24

Tratos requlfcd that the students tum in both a hard copy of their fin al paper and a copy on disk.

COUGHLIN testified that he was fired because of this indiscret ion and also because he had not

The next area of concern to the Committee involves several incidents at the Boyd School of

(1 ';)

COUGHLIN testified that on July 15,2001, he turned in a hard copy ofhis paper but that he

failed to turn in a disk.


14.

On September 7, 200 1, COUGHLIN was informed that Mr. Tratos did not have a copy of his

paper. COUGHLIN stated that while he was aware that he did not tum in a disk he did tum in a hard

'I

I'

copy of the paper.

.::, ;1

II
Ii

15.

COUGHLIN submitted the affidavit of Amy Jones, wherein she states that she witnessed

, \. COUGHLIN handing in a hard copy of his Cyber Law paper.


-.
9

16.

COUGHLIN testified that he was unable to locate the final draft of his paper on his computer

or on any of his disks. While there were several e-mai l conversaiions between COUGHLIN and Mr.

\ Tratos concerning hiring someone to try and retrieve the paper from his hard drive, this particular

option became cost prohibitive.

12

'1

The Committee finds that the real issue concerning this incident is the unprofessional way in

which COUGHLIN handled the situation, including sending Mr. Tratos offensive and sarcastic e..~

mails.

,,,

tone of the

16 i 118.
! I finding

The Conuninee encourages the Court to read the e-maiIs in their entirety in order to grasp the
e~mails

and the seriousness of the si tuation .

~See

Exhibits #2 and #3).

COUGHLIN testified that the law school initiated an official investigation that resulted in a
that COUGHLIN did not conunit any Conn of academic dishonesty.
COUGHLll'J testified that he was able to locate a rough draft of his paper and Mr. Tratos gave

i8

I~.

Iq

him a passing grade in the class.

:!o

20.

21

preheanng brief. (See Jlearing Exhibit #6). The rough draft contains some colorful if not bizarre

22

such as, "Now, I am too lazy to actually look up the case and see if it actually says this,

A copy of the rough draft was submitted to the Committee as Exhibit F to COUGHLIN's

23

and says it

24

Vegas and don't have some Ivy League kid to be my fetch-boy and ail, so ... )" and further in the

In

the way that Stevens is setting it up (but mind you I am living at the poverty line in Las

1I.II'Ii,ele, "Apparently Justice Stevens is only in favor of paying the court jester just enough to get by

'J 067

and, maybe, just maybe, send his kid to some piece of shit public school or something like that. Yeah,
thal would be nice for the plebes."
3

21

"''hen questioned about this paper, COUGHLIN explained that it was a rough draft and not

sometiung, under normal circumstances, Ihat he would have turned into the school.

I'

COUGHLIN

, \ stated that the comments and editorials were for hi s own amusement and not intended for others to
6

read. COUGHLIN further stated that there were also spelling and cite errors but he did not attempt 10
alter the draft because he was afraid that it might be an honor code violation to do so, cons idering the
CircUmStances.

\22.

Aside from the official investigation regarding the Cyber law paper and Mark Tratos, the law

\ school also initiated a second investigation regarding the issue of COUGHLIN moving a school
tt

computer into the library fOJ his personal use. COUGHLIN reported that the investigation resulted in a

:1 \ finding that he must pay $100 to the Board of Regents to cover the staff time expended to ensure that
1.1

,4

the computer monitor, keyboard and mouse were correctly reinstalled.


123.

F.')llowing the first character and fitness hearing and prior to the June 21, 2002 hearing,

I:;

COUGHLIN" sought professional counseling fTom Robert E. Hunter, Ph.D.

16

telephonically at the June 21, 2002 hearing and stated !.hat he began counseling COUGHLil'1 on April

:"7

2,2002 and conducted approximately eight sessions with him. Dr. Hunter concluded that COUGHLIN

! Il.

was suffering [rom adjustment reaction.

l'l

14.

Dr. Hunter testified

Dr. Hunter submitted an evaluation, which is Exhibit B to COUGHLIN's prehearing brief. (See

20 'Hearing Exhibit # 6).

21
22

25.

Dr. Hunter stated the following in his evaluation:


Adjustment Reaction is a benign psychological diagnosis.

It implies a

"normal" person undergoing substantial situation stress. Mr. Coughlin is by


24

hil;tOry a very high functioning and high performing young man.

He was

always at or near the head of his class, was a recognized athlete and was

11 6b

always popular and successful. His recent situation with the Nevada Bar is
unique in his experience and has been extremely stressful for Mr. Coughlin as
J

it represents the .t;irst time he has been in the role of a troubled or potentially

unfit person. His extreme emotional reaction at the initial bar hearing is
5

indicative of this, as his resultant sleep and appetite disrurbance and


6

generalized anxiety. He is making progress with his symptoms and his current
level of functioning is excellent.

26.

Allhe hearing before this Committee, Dr. Hunter testified that an episode of adjustment

reaction could last from a period of days to many months. Dr. Hunter testified that COUGHLfN had
been under many forms of stress, including taking the July 2001 Nevada bar examination, graduating
early from law school in December of2001, taking the February 2002 California bar examination the
I:!

day before the initial Nevada Character and Fitness hearing, financial stresses, car problems, a recent

I '

breakup of a
" '27

two~year

relationship and his parents' separation.

Dr. Hunter testified that he believes that COUGHLIN benefited from their sessions and that he

;:=;

strongly believes that COUGHLIN is fit to practice law.

if'

18.

COUGHLIN also caUed his father, Timothy Coughlin, as a witness. Dr. Coughlin is a family

I
Ii behaViOr and agreed with Dr. Hunter that his son's poor judgment and strange behavior was brought on

1- i practioner in Reno, Nevada. Dr. Coughlin testified that he was very concerned with his son's recent
IX

19

by stress and altempting to accomplish too many things at once. Dr. Coughlin testified that he was

20

shocked by the

21

29.

22

experienced a "melt down" at the first character and fitness hearing. COUGHLIN attributed tlus to the

stress he was experiencing and his failure to seek help or to even recognize rhe problem. COUGHLIN

e~mai ls

to Mark Tratos and that this was not his son's nonnal behavior.

At the June 21, 2002, hearing before this Committee, COUGHLIN admitted that he basically

U.ItaIMthat he did send Mr. Tratos an apology and he is very embarrassed by his behavior and the way

"'1

be conducted himself. (See Exhibit #6, Section 0).

06

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS


At the first hearing before this Committee, the Panel was very concerned with COUGHLIN's
criminal charges and the incidents at the Boyd School of Law.

As the March I, 2002, hearing

progressed; the Committee became increasingly more concerned about COUGHLIN's state of mind
5

and his mental stability than the original issues. The Committee witnessed what could be characterized

as an emotional breakdown, and after consultation with Dr. Brown, unanimously agreed that lhe

" hcanng needed to be continued.

I'

IJ

Committee wnnessed a more composed person, in appearance and in the way that he conducted

10
~

When COUGHLIN appeared for his second hearing, approximately 4 months later, the

himself

The Committee found COUGHLIN's responses and reactions to be appropriate to the

1 , I;.lluation.

:2

3.

:.'

his (illOmey but also by consulting with his rather and seeking professional counseling with Dr. Hunter.

t:::'-f

-t

The Commitlce finds that COUGHLIN was willing to seek help and advice, not only through

The Committee finds Dr. Hunter's evaluation and testimony to be reliable and relies heavily on

is

hiS findings. and Dr. Brown's concurrence in them, when making this recommendation to the Court.

16

The Committee finds that COUGHLIN was apparently under an enormous amount of stress during the

1'-

time frame of the law school incidents and the criminal charges. The Committee accepts Dr. Hunter 's

Ih

evaluation and opmion that the pressure and stress of studying and taking the Nevada Bar Examination

19

in July before graduation; graduating a semester early from law school; studying and taking the

20

California Bar Exammation in February the day before his first hearing before this Committee; the

21

expenencing of difficulties COUGHLIN encountered on his way to the California Bar Examination

22

his car break down and towed); all played a major role in his behavior before this Committee at
first hearing. The Committee also accepts Dr. Hunter's opinion that some of these same pressures

wa:e causiRg COUGHUN to act and react inappropriately during the referenced law school
.'I,IIIIIIIII8I1hese same pressures may have pJayed a role in his criminal arrest.

incidents ,

The Committee finds that Dr. Hunter's counseling has given COUGHLIN valuable insight into
his past behavior and has assisted him in recognizing warning signs of possible future stress related

problems. The Committee finds that Dr. Hunter and COUGHLIN have discussed coping mechanisms;

such as exercise and asking for help when it is needed.


The Committee finds that continual counseling with Dr. Hunter or another Ph.D. psychologist

6.
6

would only benefit COUGHLIN, and it would assure the Committee that he has an ongoing support

system. \Vhile the Committee accepts Dr. Hunter's conclusion that this was a severe reaction to

situallonal stress, the Committee is also concerned with how COUGHLIN will be able to handle the

stress that accompanies the practice of law. The Committee finds that a period of conditional admission

10

and continual counseling will allow COUGHLIN to demonstrate that he is mentally and emot ionally

11

stable and capable of handling the pressures of practicing law.

12

As to the original incidents and issues that brought this applicant before the Committee, the

COlmmnee finds that the criminal charges were dismissed and the Boyd School of Law did not impose
either academic or disciplinary sanctions. It should be noted that at the time of the first hearing the

1:'

Comminee had notified COUGHLIN that it intended to call Dean Richard Morgan as a witness. Dean

16

Morgan did appear at the first hearing, but due to the postponement of the hearing, did not testify.

1i

However, the Chainnan, in discussing with Dean Morgan his testimony to be presented to the

)8

Committee, believes that Boyd School of Law and its Dean will concur in the recommendations made

19

herem. \Vhile neither of these ancillary determinations (dismissal of the criminal charges and tbe law
school's decision not to impose sanctions) compels the Corrunittee's decision, the Conunittee does give

a certain amount of deference (0 the decisions of other agencies. This deference, along with Dr.
Hunter's [mdings that these problems, or at least the severity of these problems, were caused in great

by COUGHLIN's inability to recognize and deal with his increasing levels of stress, are the

"";1'1., reasc.usfor the Committee recommending a conditional admission.

The CommIttee finds COUGHLIN to be candid in discussing his problems and finds him 10 be

embarrassed and remorseful for the mistakes that he has made in the past. The Corrunittee finds that a
)

two-year conditional admission will allow COUGHLIN to demonstrate that he is able to handle the
4

Ipressures of practicing law and that he is able to conduct himself in a professional manner.

The

Committee believes that if similar problems resurface, they will do so during the two-year probationary

penod; alternatively, if COUGHLIN satisfies his conditional admission, the Committee's concerns will
be ehminated.

,
)

RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCORDfNGLY, tbe Conunittee, having heard the testimony and reviewed the evidence [rom

11

bOlh heanngs, determined that COUGHLIN has met his burden as imposed by SCR 51 (4) by clear and
convincing evidence in that he has demonstrated that he

IS

of good moral character and is willing and

able to abide by the high ethical standards required of attorneys and counselors of law in the state of
14
1<;

Nevada sufficient to warrant a conditional admission.

THEREFORE, the Committee recommends that COUGHLIN be admitted to the State Bar of

ilJ

Nevada, provided that his admission be conditioned upon the terms of the Agreement, attached as

1-

Exhibit "An and filed in accordance with SCR 49.7.

18

,Q

Dated 'his

day of September, 2002

20

Michael S. Rowe, Chair


Bar ID #1374
Law Offices of Rowe & Hales, LLP
1638 Esmeralda
Minden, NY 89423

2t

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

3
4
5

The foregoing SUMMARY OF HEARING AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE


COMMITTEE was served on:

6
Zachary B. Coughlin
Peter Christiansen, Esq.

Christiansen Law Offices


520 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Ily mailing a copy thereof, first-class mail, postage prepaid all the 20Ul day of September, 2002.

LJn rea A.

eauc lamp, a e

of [he State Bar of Nevada

16

18
19

20
21

22

oyee

S-ar putea să vă placă și