Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
,
1\ ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN TO PRACTICE
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
"d
'
..
-+
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
o '
,\
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,
. i -+
4.
Of concern to the Committee are COUGHLIN's criminal charges, the incidents at the law
I:'>
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
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
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
\-
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-
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
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'
.::, ;1
II
Ii
15.
COUGHLIN submitted the affidavit of Amy Jones, wherein she states that she witnessed
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
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
~See
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
:!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
F.')llowing the first character and fitness hearing and prior to the June 21, 2002 hearing,
I:;
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.
l'l
14.
Dr. Hunter submitted an evaluation, which is Exhibit B to COUGHLIN's prehearing brief. (See
21
22
25.
It implies a
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
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
Dr. Hunter testified that he believes that COUGHLIN benefited from their sessions and that he
;:=;
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
06
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
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
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;
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
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
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
able to abide by the high ethical standards required of attorneys and counselors of law in the state of
14
1<;
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-
18
,Q
Dated 'his
20
2t
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
3
4
5
6
Zachary B. Coughlin
Peter Christiansen, Esq.
Ily mailing a copy thereof, first-class mail, postage prepaid all the 20Ul day of September, 2002.
LJn rea A.
eauc lamp, a e
16
18
19
20
21
22
oyee