Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1472

I/"~

"rIWI''''\H'II''1

/or~v~11\,

,It,fill"vr~"",'''''"

lUll",

"""'01

",>",

"

.,

"

"

\

\

\

-

- J Rnll'\\ 1lI1'\I~"Il 'N I (\10 IIIF~1 \II ' 1I\1(t 01 1 111 1.\ell\R\ COI(;1II
- J Rnll'\\ 1lI1'\I~"Il 'N I (\10 IIIF~1 \II ' 1I\1(t 01 1 111 1.\ell\R\ COI(;1II

J

Rnll'\\ 1lI1'\I~"Il 'N I (\10 IIIF~1 \II ' 1I\1(t 01 1 111

'N I (\10 IIIF~1 \II ' 1I\1(t 01 1 111 1.\ell\R\ COI(;1II IN . IN II

1.\ell\R\ COI(;1II IN .

IIIF~1 \II ' 1I\1(t 01 1 111 1.\ell\R\ COI(;1II IN . IN II \Nh. ) )

IN II \Nh.

)

)

)

)

)

)

01 1 111 1.\ell\R\ COI(;1II IN . IN II \Nh. ) ) ) ) ) )

011111"1{

COI(;1II IN . IN II \Nh. ) ) ) ) ) ) 011111"1{ his rc-~lll1 ':O(lS
COI(;1II IN . IN II \Nh. ) ) ) ) ) ) 011111"1{ his rc-~lll1 ':O(lS
COI(;1II IN . IN II \Nh. ) ) ) ) ) ) 011111"1{ his rc-~lll1 ':O(lS
COI(;1II IN . IN II \Nh. ) ) ) ) ) ) 011111"1{ his rc-~lll1 ':O(lS

his rc-~lll1

':O(lS

1\,"

;l'\\ i:-: lkm.:d

\s lill lll'l'h",ltI\ 's klll'\ dnh'd JUIIIIIII}' \ .\, '

·:-II\.'r$UmnH\I'~

\IId n.·,:chl~d.1-'11\1,11:' 1(), ~on~. th,,' 11,:111 1 ;l1\d tIll' \,\llhhth\\1111 \11 Il l t \l\ plI Y IlWII\ 1.111

1(), ~on~. th,,' 11,:111 1 ;l1\d tIll' \,\llhhth\\1111 \11 Il l t \l\ plI Y IlWII\
1(), ~on~. th,,' 11,:111 1 ;l1\d tIll' \,\llhhth\\1111 \11 Il l t \l\ plI Y IlWII\
1(), ~on~. th,,' 11,:111 1 ;l1\d tIll' \,\llhhth\\1111 \11 Il l t \l\ plI Y IlWII\
CATE OF SERVICE [Rule 62(b), R les Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)] I am
CATE OF SERVICE
[Rule 62(b), R
les Proc.;
Code Civ. Proc., §
1013a(4)]
I
am
a
Case Administrator of the St
e
Bar Court.
I am
over the age ofeighteen and not a party to
the within proceeding.
on February 6,2008,
Pursuant to
I deposited a t
andard court practice,
in
the City and County of Los Angeles,
e
copy of the following document(s):
in a sealed envelope for collection a
d mailing on that date as follows:
[XJ
by first-dass
mail,
with
p
age thereon
fully prepaid, through
the United
States Postal
Service at Los Angeles, Cali
omia, addressed as follows:
ZACHARY B.
COGHLIN
945 W. 12TH ST.
RENO, NV
89503
{X]
·by
interoffice mail
through
facility
regularly
maintained
by
the State Bar
of California
addressed as follows:
, Enforcement, San Francisco
I
hereby certify that the foregoing i
true and
correct.
Executed in Los
Angeles, California,
on
February
6, 2008.
Milagro del R.
Salmeron
Case Administrator
State
Bar Court
Certificate
ofService.wpt
1 THE STATE BAR OF CALI ORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF T AL COUNSEL 2
1
THE STATE BAR OF CALI
ORNIA
OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF T
AL COUNSEL
2
SC OTT J.
DREXEL, No. 656
0
CHIEF
TRIAL COUNSEL
3
RUSSELL
G. WEINER,No.
4504
DEPUTY CHIEF
TRIAL CO
SEL
4
LAWRENCE J.
DAL CERR
,No. 104342
ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
5
DONALD R. STEEDMAN,
SUPERVISING TRIAL CO
o. 104927
SEL
6
SUSAN 1. KAGAN,No. 214 09
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSE
7
180
Howard Street
San Francisco,
California
94
05
8
Telephone:
(415) 538-2345
9
Attorneys for the
Committee
f Bar Examiners
10
THE STATE BAR COURT
11
REVIEW DEPARTMENT
12
13
In the Matter of
)
Case No.:
06-M-13755
14
)
)
OPPOSITION TO
REQUEST FOR
15
ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN
)
RECONSIDERATION
OF DENIAL OF
)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
16
)
SUMMARY REVIEW
A S
.
)
� � t =m= e
B
A ��
li �
c
a:n�t �
+-
17
To:
The Honorable J
Ann Remke,Presiding
Judge,the Associate Judges of the Review
18
Department of the State Bar
ourt,and Applicant Zachary B.
Coughlin:
19
Since the Hearing
De
artment decision was-issued in thinnatter back on August
20,
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
clearly does not qualify).
23
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
ber 27,2007,this
Court dismissed the request for review.
26
On January
3,2007,
fter applicant filed more papers,this
Court issued
an Order giving
27
applicant until
January
14,2
08
to tender the costs.
28

�r�

Now,applicant has fil d for reconsideration again seeking summary review. That 1 2 motion is
Now,applicant has fil d for reconsideration again seeking summary review.
That
1
2
motion is meritless,given the
ature of this proceeding.
3
Applicant has also su
mitted a letter that apparently enclosed the transcript costs.
4
However,given that the letter was posted in Reno on January 14,2008 it is doubtful that the
5
check was received by the St
e Bar Court Clerk prior to the expiration of the January 14,2008
6
deadline.
If so,we recomme
that the Court dismiss this review proceeding as provided in its
7
January 3,2008 Order.
8
Also,applicant's chec
was not deiivered unequivocally.
Rather,applicant's letter
9
requests that the check not be cashed "if there is no possibility that I will be certified for
10
admission to practice law in
alifornia considering Rule IX of the Rule [sic] Regulating
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
ination in July 2002.
Thus,applicant's Bar results have become
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.
16 Under these circumst
ces,applicant apparently does not want his check cashed.
17
Applicant was require
to perfect his review request by
September
14,2007 (rule
18
301(A)(1),Rules Proc. State
ar).
It has been four additional months,and the transcripts have
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.
22
Respectfully submitted,
23
ORNIA
AL COUNSEL
24
25
Dated:
January \� , 2008
B
26
R.
dman
27
g Trial Counsel
Attorneys for the Committee of Bar Examiners
28
1 DE LARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 CASE NUMBER: 06-M-13 55 3 I, the
1
DE
LARATION
OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2
CASE NUMBER:
06-M-13
55
3
I,
the undersigned, over the a
e of eighteen (18) years, whose business address and place of
4
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
5
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,
6
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,
7
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
8
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
9
date
shown below,
a true cop
of the within
10
OPPOSITION
TO REQUE
T FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY REVIEW
11
in a sealed envelope placed
£
r
collection and mailing at San Francisco,
on the date shown
12
below, addressed to:
13
Zachary R.
Coughlin
945 West
12th Street
14
Reno, NV
89503
15
in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed to:
16
nla
17
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
DATED:
January
18, 2008
SIGNED:
21
����� Paula H. D'Oyen
Declarant
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I

\

'I·Ul

P

M

u
u

~

Rt

1

'"

I R • • •
I
R
I \ 'I·Ul P M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • -
I \ 'I·Ul P M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • -
I \ 'I·Ul P M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • -
I \ 'I·Ul P M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • -

-

I \ 'I·Ul P M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • -

""'

M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' .,
M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' .,
M u ~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' .,

lAP

~ Rt 1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' ., -- .\fpII<--

AI"'

.,

-- .\fpII<--

ty

1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' ., -- .\fpII<-- ty --

--

, " -•.--

1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' ., -- .\fpII<-- ty --
1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' ., -- .\fpII<-- ty --
c , I
c ,
I
1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' ., -- .\fpII<-- ty --
1 '" I R • • • - ""' lAP AI"' ., -- .\fpII<-- ty --

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

mcffC:CDVC:.

Rule IX CC'llds;

The '~RULE Comrruttcc IX. Time shall Limitation n for S'ltisfyln

-J:

_

g

I

A

dllllssion . . Requirements

uprcme Court for

adnusslOn to practice I,.

_

a,

'.

' ~~'

~

0

ot ecru,\, :all :J.1'pllc-ant tiS

n1'

.

_

0

t \c

.

fi

. III

las sans 1C

d

admission found 10 these wn Rul'~' u c~s the app","

pracncc law 10 Califo

rears of the L'ts[ d

the applicant pass;d

c\;dence 10

in satisfy" a partlc r. ca~e the C~mmittce extends such rune linutation. Delay

:til rcqwrcmcms for

. th ,e5. 10 trike the attorney's oath and be :aclmlltcd to de :'Ipplicam must take the attorney's oath Within fl've

~

mtmStt!l,uon . of th

C n

a I arrua

B

at

E

'xammallon th:ll

c or good cause shown by clear and convincing

UlC a

n1

css

res

r

ul

t

tog the admISSion reqUIrements found in these Rules dIal is the

0

f

d

an applic

.

an

t'

s neg

Ii

genec or the

result of the applicant's having

eccI\'e

a n,~gatJve moral character determination shall nOt constitute

good cause.

(emphasIs added).

12

13

Applicant took and passed the Jul), 2002 California Bar Examlllation. As such five years has

Applicant took and passed the Jul), 2002 California Bar Examlllation. As such five years has
Applicant took and passed the Jul), 2002 California Bar Examlllation. As such five years has

elapsed smce Applicant's passing ili· e cxanunanon an

.

dR'

ole IX may make Applicant's Request for

.

14

15

16

Re\'~' u:relevant.

jf t1us 15 the case.

Applicant requests that the S2.500 check for the cOSts of uansccipts not be cashed

\\D.ile the Order of Janu:u)" 3 nl , 2008 allows for applicant to go fot\vard with a Plenary Review, no

noonale IS prO\;ded for the denial of the Request for Summary Rcvicw, other than the Order staring

17

that "this maner 15 not appropriate for summary review". Applicant requests that the dcrnal of this

18

Summary Renew be reconsidered, or 10 the alternative, mat some supporting rationale be pro\·ided for

19

why a Swnmary Re"ew is not appropriate where a Plenary Review has been granted.

20 :\ "dry" reckless dm;ng charge was the focal point of the State Bar's case. Judge McElroy'S

21 OpUllOO contalllS a heading that wrongly identifies this charge as a ({DUI conviction". Applicant sdf

22

23

reponed the subscancc abuse issues brought forth in this case and undertook trcmendous efforts to

iiddrcss these ISsues (submitnng o\rer an estimated 600 signatures from A.i\. meetings and lctters of

24 rec!')lnmcndaaon from attorney's who have known the applicant for years and participated in his

25

26

27

28

rec!')lnmcndaaon from attorney's who have known the applicant for years and participated in his 25 26

//

/

J I I, ,~"w", i t /(I/'~

~

,/

III

/I

12

Jl

14

I'>

II,

Il

I~

1'/

111

LI

1.2

21

24

~

111

17

1IIi

/ r-

I- c.

/;o(.J~(J,uV,hllfi

1)1'~W 12'n ~,_

I~I nt •• 'IV ~f)Sn.~

(77;) H" I< Ilk

(
(
, I \ \ \' \ \I! II, ,iii, I III II , .1 \

,

, I \ \ \' \ \I! II, ,iii, I III II , .1 \ ,'11,,-<1\11\
, I \ \ \' \ \I! II, ,iii, I III II , .1 \ ,'11,,-<1\11\
, I \ \ \' \ \I! II, ,iii, I III II , .1 \ ,'11,,-<1\11\

I

\

\

\'

\

\I!

II,

,iii, I III II ,

.1 \ ,'11,,-<1\11\ 111111. I Ih , h' 1\1 \ ". 1'" 1111' \.1
.1 \ ,'11,,-<1\11\ 111111. I Ih
,
h'
1\1
\
".
1'"
1111'
\.1

\'\11 '

I

1\

I'! \I,

'~I ,Ie, ,t ~

III '\III h.I,'\I

I

\

\I, '~I ,Ie, ,t ~ I II '\III h.I, '\I I \ .III" ltli • Ih,'l

.III" ltli • Ih,'l Ihe

'\III h.I, '\I I \ .III" ltli • Ih,'l Ihe ~1I'\I~'1\1 \Ilk." \ ' \'\'\ 11

~1I'\I~'1\1\Ilk."

\ ' \'\'\ 11 \1\\

F~IL D

STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE LOS ,4"NGEI,ES

1) i) LtiUb ,G

('" """~",0

REVIEW DEP

RTMENT OF THE STATE BAR COURT

IN BANK

In the Matter of

)

No.06-M-13755

)

)

ORDER

)

)

ZACHARY COUGHLIN,

An Applicant for Admission.

------------------+------)

The court finds that this

therefore, applicant's request for

filing of request for review, the

atter is not appropriate for summary review, and

ummary review is denied. As for his motion for late

otion is granted, in part, and applicant has until January

14, 2008 to tender the cost ofthe transcripts or his request for review will be dismissed.

No further extensions will be gr

ted.

REMKE

Presiding Judge

CER

IFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rule 62(b), Ru es Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

Bar Court. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to

the within proceeding. Pursuant to st ndard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles,

on January 3,2008, I deposited a tru

I am a Case Administrator of the Sta

copy of the following document(s):

ORDER FIL

D JANUARY 3,2007

in a sealed envelope for collection an

mailing on that date as follows:

[X] by first-class mail, with post ge thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at LosAIlg~l~s, Califirnia, addressed as follows:

ZACHARY B. COU

945 W. 12TH ST.

RENO, NV

89503

[X] by interoffice mail through a addressed as follows:

SUSAN I. KAGAN,

I hereby certify that the foregoing is

January 3, 2008.

Certificate of Service. wpt

foregoing is January 3, 2008. Certificate of Service. wpt acility regularly maintained by the State Bar

acility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California

nforcement, San Francisco

ue and correct.

Executed in Los Angeles, California, on

San Francisco ue and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on Rosalie Ruiz Case Administrator State

Rosalie Ruiz

Case Administrator State Bar Court

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

SCOTT J. DREXEL, No. 65670 CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

RUSSELL G. WEINER, No. 94504 DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 104342 ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

DONALD R. STEEDMAN, No. 104927 SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL

SUSAN 1. KAGAN, No. 214209 DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL

180 Howard Street San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 538-2037

10

11

12

13

In the Matter of

THESTATEB

REVIEW DEPARTMENT -

COURT

AN FRANCISCO

) Case No. 0 -M-13755

121-

15

16

17

18

ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN,

An Applicant for Admission.

)

)

OPPOSITI

N TO MOTION FOR LATE FILING OF

)

REQUEST

OR REVIEW; OPPOSITION TO

)

REQUEST

ORSLJMMARYREVIEW

)

) (Rules Proc of State Bar, rules 301)

To: The Review Department of the State Bar

ourt: Applicant filed a motion for late

19

20

filing of request review and request for summary revi w in this matter on or about November 28,

2007. The State Bar opposes applicant's motion for ate filing of request for review on the basis

21

22

23

24

25

that the motion is untimely and does not set forth go d cause. The State Bar moves to deny

applicant's request for summary review pursuant to

Ie 308(e)(3).1

STATEMENT 0

FACTS

1. On August 20, 2007, the Hearing Dep

nt issued a decision denying applicant's2 0 0 7 , t h e H e a r i n g D

application for admission to the State Bar of Califo .a on the basis that applicant currently

26

27

28

1Unless otherwise noted, all further reference

of California will be referred to as "rule."

to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar

-1-

1

lacked the requisite good moral character necessary or admission to the practice of law.

2

2. On or about September 13,2007, applica t attempted to file a request for review;

3

request for summary review. However, he did not s rve a copy of the request on the State Bar.

4

Accordingly, on September 18,2007, the Court issu d a notice of rejection of applicant's request

5

for review.

6

3. On September 27,2007, applicant filed a equest for review; request for summary

7

review. In the motion, applicant requested the folIo

ing: "the costs for transcription be waived

8

or that he be given an extension oftime to pay this c st pursuant to a payment plan."

9

4. On October 5, 2007, this Court issued an

rder designating applicant's request as

10 "only a request for review under rule 301." On the i sue of costs, the Court ordered as follows:

11 "No good cause shown, applicant's request that the

osts of the trial transcript be waived, or that

12 he be given an extension oftime to pay pursuant to t e payment plan is denied." The Court

13 further noted that applicant's request for review "wil be dismissed unless, within 15 days after

14 service of this order;tne appIicanftenders the requir ddeposit and shows good cause why it was

15 not timely paid, or shows good cause why other arra gements satisfactory to the court have not

16 been made."

17 5. On or about October 22,2007, applicant s bmitted a letter to the Court, stating: "I

18 currently do not have the funds to pay for a trial tran cript. I do not have any means of being

19 able to secure these funds in the near future. I ask th t the Review Department consider

20 providing some option for a payment plan or waiver

21 copy of this letter on the State Bar.

22 6. By letter dated October 25,2007, the Cou

fthese fees." Applicant did not serve a

notified applicant that his letter of October

23 22, 2007 was not filed on the basis that his request w s not in the form of a written motion and

24 was not served on the opposing party. Thereafter, ap lieant did not file a motion demonstrating

25 that he tendered the required deposit for the trial tran cripts and demonstrating good cause why

26 the deposit was not timely paid, or otherwise provid

27 arrangements have not been made.

28 7. On November 27,2007, the Court issued

-2-

good cause demonstrating why other

n order dismissing applicant's request for

1

review, stating that applicant: "failed to tender the r

quired deposit or show good cause why

2

other arrangements have not been made. In fact, ap

licant failed to file any response to the

3

court's October 5, 2007 order."

 

4

8.

On or about November 28,2007, applica

t filed a motion for late filing of request for

5

review; request for summary review. On the issue 0 costs, applicant solely states as follows:

6

"Applicant was previously unable to afford the tran ription costs associated with a Request for

7

Review. Applicant is now able to afford the transc tion costs and asks that this Court grant

8

this Motion for Late Filing of Request for Review."

 

9

DISCUSS ON

10

THE MOTION FOR LATE FILING OF RE VEST FOR REVIEW IS UNTIMELY AND FAILS TO SET FORTH OOD CAUSE.

11

12

Pursuant to this Court's order of October 5,

007, applicant was required to file a motion

13

by October 25,2007/ demonstrating that he tendere the required deposit for the trial transcripts

14

and setting forlfigoo(lcausewny the costs were not imeiy paid, or otherwise provide good

15

cause why other arrangements have not been made.

 

16

As set forth above, applicant failed to file a

otion in compliance with the Court's order

17

by October 25,2007. As a consequence of this failu e, the Court dismissed applicant's request

18

for review. Hence, applicant's motion is not only

18 for review. Hence, applicant's motion is not only

19

Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court ha not dismissed this appeal on November 27,

20

2007, applicant's motion for late filing should be dis issed since it does not comply with the

21

Court's October 5, 2007 order. Specifically, applica t failed to demonstrate that he tendered the

22

deposit for the trial transcripts and failed to set forth

ood cause for his failure to timely do so.

23

His unverified statement regarding his inability to af ord costs does not rise to the level of good

24

cause.

25

III

26

27

 

2This represents fifteen (15) days from Octob r 5,2007, plus five days for mailing under

28

rule 63 and section 1o13(a) of the Code of Civil Pro edure.

 

-3-

1 THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVIE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 2 Pursuant to the Court's October
1
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVIE
SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
2
Pursuant to the Court's October 5, 2007 ord r, applicant's September 27,2007 request
3
was designated as a request for review in accordanc
with rule 308(e)(3).
4
Rule 308(e)(3) provides in pertinent part: "I both a request for summary review under
5
this rule and a request for review under rule 301 are imely filed in the same proceeding, the
6
matter shall proceed pursuant to rules 301-304, subj ct to subparagraph (2) o£this paragraph."
7
As set forth above, applicant again filed a re uest for review at the same time as his
8
request for summary review. In accordance with rul 308(e)(3), if the matter is to go forward, it
9
should proceed pursuant to rules 301-304. Therefor, applicant's request for summary review
10
should be dismissed at this time.
11
Moreover, applicant has not established that
is matter is appropriate for summary
12
review. On summary review, applicant would be bo nd by the Hearing Department's "material
13
findings. " (See rule 308(a).) In this matter, the Hea ng Department made adverse factual
14
findings concerning applicant' s monil character. Sin e applicant would be bound by those
15
adverse factual findings, he cannot demonstrate that
e would prevail on summary review.
16
Therefore, applicant's request for summary review s ould be denied.
17
18
Applicant's request for review is untimely an
does not set forth good cause. Based on
19
the foregoing, the State Bar respectfully requests that applicant's request for review; request for
20
summary review be dismissed.
21
22
TE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
F THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
23
24
25
Dated: December 1D ,2007
26
27
28
-4-

1

DECLARATION OF S

VICE BY MAIL

2

CASE NUMBER: 06-M-13755

2 CASE NUMBER: 06-M-13755

3

I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) yea s, whose business address and place of employment is the State Bar of California, 180 Ho rd Street, San Francisco, California 94105,

4

declare that I am not a party to the within action; th I am readily familiar with the State Bar of California's practice for collection and processing 0 correspondence for mailing with the United

5

States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of e State Bar of California's practice, correspondence collected and processed by the Stat Bar of California would be deposited with

6

the United States Postal Service that same day; that am aware that on motion of party served,

service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation da

 

or postage meter date on the envelope or

7

package is more than one day after date of deposit fI r mailing contained in the affidavit. That in accordance with the practice of the State Bar of Cali ornia for collection and processing of mail,

8

I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in t e City and County of San Francisco, on the date shown below, a true copy of the within

9

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LATE FILIN

 

OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW;

10

OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR SUMMAR REVIEW

(Rules Proc. of State Bar, rules 301)

11

in a sealed envelope placed for collection and maili g at San Francisco, on the date shown

12

below, addressed to:

13

Zachary B. Coughlin

14

Reno, Nevada 89503

15 in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained

16 Honorable Patrice E. McElroy

y the State Bar of California addressed to:

1 7

18

19

20

21

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of he State of California that the foregoing is

true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, Califo

ia, on the date shown below.

DATED: December 20,2007

Califo ia, on the date shown below. DATED: December 20,2007 Paula H. D' Oyen Declarant 22

Paula H. D' Oyen Declarant

22

23

24

25

26

27

~

I • II 21.1 Ii 7 wII~ ad 1$
I
II 21.1
Ii
7
wII~
ad 1$

.~r

'. C II

ldlllUor ~

II 21.1 Ii 7 wII~ ad 1$ .~r '. C II ldlllUor ~ Ie tail. ,,,

Ie tail.

,,,

a_a.

Iszl.

-"

-.6.

-.

I.'" t:II.c I "I

" • lllih. I \I '\I n.' •• 01 • III" .111 11'1 tv, f
" • lllih. I \I '\I n.' •• 01 • III" .111 11'1 tv, f

"

" • lllih. I \I '\I n.' •• 01 • III" .111 11'1 tv, f lit

lllih.

I

\I

'\I

n.'

•• 01

• III" .111

11'1 tv,

f lit I"

j ~I

"

~

II \11\

IN

.111 11'1 tv, f lit I" j ~I " ~ II \11\ IN I' IllIh I
.111 11'1 tv, f lit I" j ~I " ~ II \11\ IN I' IllIh I

I'

11'1 tv, f lit I" j ~I " ~ II \11\ IN I' IllIh I I

IllIh I I lI'qUI''''' hn

1\,\" \\

lind, I lid,

\til

III !lIt

_,Hilt 'II'!"

1I1viH "" III}

,lppln,lIl! Ii 11''1111'',11111 I.'\II 'W 111111 lilt • 'j', l li 11/111'

Inallt'lII· r tit II

"

l!1\ l'tllllll'~h'Il!\IIJlIIt/ 111111' 10) 1';1), I'll/ hll.lul hIli jlIIYIIl4'1J1 Ilhlll

II

01

I!()

J

hIli jlIIYIIl4'1J1 Ilhlll II 01 I!() • • J Plll\ lilt'" l1iill IljI' lI'qlW',1

Plll\ lilt'" l1iill IljI' lI'qlW',1 1111 It \lh'W Wl/liI,JIII .II ,I"J~d 'JIlt.:

It \lh'W Wl/liI,JIII .II ,I"J~ d 'JIlt.: II \,,,1') \1111 11I11t'1~ pUIt!. 01
It \lh'W Wl/liI,JIII .II ,I"J~ d 'JIlt.: II \,,,1') \1111 11I11t'1~ pUIt!. 01

II \,,,1') \1111 11I11t'1~ pUIt!. 01 "ItOWI'" W;1I4/d ",:111M

why tllh , IJIliiJlIUJJM

t,;,lUlI It.ltl 11111 IIl"'}lIIIIIII,,'

(Hllh~ I'llIt oj :i1:11 1 Ha, "J" ~IJI(ijIIJ}

~

I'llIt oj :i1:11 1 Ha, "J" ~IJI(ijIIJ} ~ Appllnllli hUH JUI"''' II)

Appllnllli hUH JUI"''' II) klll!<-' Iltl

,(I,HII' d tll.!JPI ,jt 'll

;b)w ~J:"A

Iltl ,(I,HII' d tll.!JPI ,jt 'll ;b)w ~J:"A rr,IIIV~"U'II"h"v~ nlll h~clI ",,"k

rr,IIIV~"U'II"h"v~nlll

h~clI",,"k

III I"d, .pph< :IIlIhlll• .j II) ill>: '/ J r'"""',,-.',,· II, '

_l'Url' (,,,,,her~.2()()7IlnJ"1 Al~,,,,JI"l(ly.IJw'<:<jUl: I J'H ,~y /1 i "

2()()7IlnJ"1 Al~,,,,JI"l(ly.IJw '<:<jUl: I J'H ,~y /1 i " ", "'II It J ld

",

"'II It J ld

2()()7IlnJ"1 Al~,,,,JI"l(ly.IJw '<:<jUl: I J'H ,~y /1 i " ", "'II It J ld
2()()7IlnJ"1 Al~,,,,JI"l(ly.IJw '<:<jUl: I J'H ,~y /1 i " ", "'II It J ld

ra:

J1'.

ra: J1'. 'Jf;l'tUt;l W , ~ ~. '" ,r .il.iU' ,W.(.J, (,~ lHI'. lIt'UTf'. "~k

'Jf;l'tUt;l W

ra: J1'. 'Jf;l'tUt;l W , ~ ~. '" ,r .il.iU' ,W.(.J, (,~ lHI'. lIt'UTf'. "~k
ra: J1'. 'Jf;l'tUt;l W , ~ ~. '" ,r .il.iU' ,W.(.J, (,~ lHI'. lIt'UTf'. "~k

,

~

~.

'"

,r

.il.iU' ,W.(.J,

(,~ lHI'. lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4

m

f

,

1

,

,

J

lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula
lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula
lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula
lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula
lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula
lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula

I

lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula
lIt'UTf'. "~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula

have /JOt been made. (kula Proc. ofSlale Bar, rule 301(a)i2).)

"~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula Proc.
"~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula Proc.
"~k (.(Jf.((f4 m f , 1 , , J I have /JOt been made. (kula Proc.

Petitioner

 

THE

STATE

BAR

COURT

OF

THE

STATE

BAR

OF

CALIFORNIA

REVIEW

DEPARTMENT

-

SAN

FRANCISCO

I S {Ss-l

FOR I

\

8 II

9 / 1

10 ,

II

12

I

13 1

14 I

J5

In

the

Matter of

Case

No .•

Of,

.<

Zachary Coughlin

Character Petitioner

REQUEST

SUMMARy

FOR

REVIE"w ,

(RULE

REQUEST

301 . 3 0 3 )

Moral

REVIEW

\

ZACHARY COUGHLIN respectfully requests

review

and

summary review

16 i

of

the

adverse

determination

of

moral

character by the

Hearing

17

Department.

 

18

Coughlin requests

that

the

costs

for

transcription be waived or

 

19

that

he

be

given

an

extension

of

time

to pay this

cost pursuant

to

20

a

payment

plan.

 

21

~?

23

'4

25

26

27

28

Date:

September

24,

2007

~ ? 23 '4 25 26 27 28 Date: September 24, 2007 - ry ary B.

-

ry ary B.
ry
ary B.

Coughlin

Coughlin,

945

W.

12th St.

Reno,

NV

89503

(775) 338-8118

\

i

Page

1

of

1

\

Date: September 24, 2007 - ry ary B. Coughlin Coughlin, 945 W. 12th St. Reno, NV
Date: September 24, 2007 - ry ary B. Coughlin Coughlin, 945 W. 12th St. Reno, NV
Date: September 24, 2007 - ry ary B. Coughlin Coughlin, 945 W. 12th St. Reno, NV
FILED AUG 2 0 '001 STATEBAACOURTClERJ<:SOFFICE SAN FRANCISCO STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT
FILED AUG 2 0 '001 STATEBAACOURTClERJ<:SOFFICE SAN FRANCISCO STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT

FILED

AUG

2 0 '001

STATEBAACOURTClERJ<:SOFFICE

SAN FRANCISCO

2 0 '001 STATEBAACOURTClERJ<:SOFFICE SAN FRANCISCO STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO

In the Malter of

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN.

) )

)
)

l

Case No . 06-M-13755-PE:\1

DECISION

Applicant for Admissio n.

--------------------)

I. Introd uction

After receiving an adverse mora l character determination from the Comminee of Bar

Examiners afthe State Bar of Califomia (comminee), applicant Zachary Barker Coughlin appeals

that decision and seeks a de novo determination of his moral character from this court.

Applicant

represented himself. The committee was represented by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the

State Bar of California. by and through Dep uty Trial Counsel Susan I. Kagan.

A four-day hearing was he ld on May 8. 9. 10. and 22. 2007.

The matter was submitted for

decision on May 22. 2007 .

For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that applicant currently lacks the requisite

(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6060.

good moral character necessary for admission to the practice of law.

subd.(b);' Rules Regul a ting Admiss ion to Practice Law, rul e

X.)

II. Moral Character Determination

Applicants for admission to practice law mu st possess good mo ral character (Bus. & Prof.

(b», which includes traits of "honesty, fai rness. candor. trustworthiness.

Code, 9 \lIIQI
Code, 9
\lIIQI

ponsibility, respect for and obedience to the laws of the state and the

Regul ati ng Admission

f!lfbersand for the judicial process ." (Rul es

the provisions of the Business and Professions Code.

to Practice Law, rule X, § 1.) An app icant for admission has the burden
to
Practice Law, rule X,
§
1.)
An
app
icant for admission has
the burden to prove his or her own
moral
fitness.
Where
the committee rebuts
an applicant's
prima
facie showing of
good moral
character with clear and
convincing
e
idence
of applicant's bad moral character,
the burden falls
upon the applicant to demonstrate his
0
her rehabilitation.
(In re Gossage
(2000) 23 Ca1.4th
1080,
1095-1096.)
The more serious the bad
haracter evidence,the stronger an applicant's rehabilitative
showing must
be. (Id.
at p.
1096.)
All reasonable doubts are ordinarily resolved in the applicant's
favor. (Seide v.
Committee ol Bar Exa
iners
(1989)
49 Ca1.3d 933,
937.)
III.
App ·cant's General Background
A.
Educational Background
Applicant attended the Universi
y
of Washington from 1995 through 1996.
In January 1997,
applicant enrolled in the University of Nevada,Reno,graduating with a B.S. degree in biology in
1999.
In August 1999,applicant attend d the University of Nevada,Boyd School of Law,Las Vegas
(UNLV), graduating with
a
J.D.
degr
e
in 2001.
Applicant took and
passed
the
California
bar
examination in July 2002.
B.
2001 Application for Admissi
n to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Applicant applied
for admissi
n
to
practice
law
in
Nevada
in February 2001 and was
successful
on
the July
2001 Nevada
r
examination.
The
Nevada's bar
Committee
on
Moral
Character and Fitness (Nevada Commit ee) had several issues of concerns regarding
applicant,such
as his criminal charges,the incidents at t
e law school,employment termination and mental stability.
In
September
2002, after
a
hearing,
he
Nevada
Committee
recommended
that
applicant
be
conditionally admitted to the Nevada S
ate Bar.
By order dated December 18,20
2,the Supreme Court of Nevada deferred
the admission of
applicant
as an
attorney
until
October
1, 2003.
The
deferral was
conditioned
on
applicant's
compliance
with
the following terms:
(1)
submit
to
�onthly counseling
by
a
licensed Ph.D.
psychologist
and
submit
to
and
abi
e
by
any
course
of
treatment
deemed
necessary
and
recommended by the psychologist;
(2)
ubmit a
signed release
allowing the State
Bar of Nevada
access to any counseling records; (3) sub
it quarterly statements to the Office of Bar Counsel during
-
2
-

mpliance with the conditions; and (4) abide by the Nevada

the probationary period attesting to his Supreme Court Rules and the Rules of completed and
the probationary period attesting to his
Supreme Court Rules and the Rules of
completed and fully complied with the
the deferral period
and recommende
conditioned again on the terms of his d ferral as set forth above.
Court of Nevada issued an order ad
itting applicant as a member
of the Nevada
However, that admission was conditio
deferral agreement.
C. 2002 Application for Admissi n to Practice Law in the State of California
On September 28, 2002, appli
California.
Thereafter, he submitted u
occasions - January 9, 2003; February
2004; and February 15, 2007.
On January 7, 2003,
the com
assistance in its investigation of app]" ant.
On January 9, 2003,
corrected his September 2002 applicati
n.
of his application for a license to practi
2002 United States Patent and Tradem
names of five character references.
On February 23, 2003, applicant
23, 2003, for driving under the influenc
at Schuering, Zimmerman & Scully.
0
to describe his relationship with alcoho
and/or drugs.
committee and confirmed that he pled
California Vehicle Code section 23103 (
ry reckless).
-3-

rofessional Conduct of the State Bar of Nevada.

On December 21, 2004, the N vada Committee reported that applicant had successfully

rms of the conditions of his deferral agreement throughout

that applicant be admitted to the State Bar of Nevada

On March 25, 2005, the Supreme

State

Bar.

ed until 2008 on the terms of probations as set forth in his

ant filed an application for admission to the State Bar of

dates and amendments to his application on six separate

3, 2003; March 19, 2003; September 15, 2003; May 31,

ittee wrote to the Nevada Committee requesting material

applicant supplemented and

Applicant told of the Nevada Supreme Court's deferral

e law in Nevada, indicated that he had passed the October

k Office Patent Attorney Examination and submitted the

rote to the committee that he had been arrested on January

and that, as a result, he had been let go from his position

March 5, 2003, the committee asked applicant to provide

a copy of his police report from the arres ing agency regarding his January 2003 arrest for DUI and

On March 19, 2003, applicant wrote the

010 contendere on March 11, 2003, to a violation of the

On September 4, 2003, the co ittee wrote to the State Bar of Nevada requesting
On September 4, 2003, the co ittee wrote to the State Bar of Nevada requesting
On September 4, 2003, the co
ittee wrote to the State Bar of Nevada requesting a copy of
applicant's psychological evaluation re
ort and
a copy of the arrest
and conviction documents in
applicant's
resisting arrest misdemean
r
in October 2001.
By July
13, 2004,
the
committee had
decided that
it was
not
in the
position
to
recommend applicant's admission
to
the State
Bar
of
California.
The committee decided that
hey would hold in abeyance until January 13, 2005,
so that
they could evaluate applicant's particip
tion in the Lawyer Assistance Program of the State Bar of
California (LAP) which has been establi hed to provide assistance with mental health and substance
abuse issues to members of the legal pr
fession.
On July 19,
2004, applicant signed a stipulation
with the committee that his recovery fro
alcohol abuse would be monitored by an agent from LAP.
The stipulation
required applicant to
uthorize
the committee
to release
to
LAP all
materials
submitted
in connection
with
his
appl·
ation
and further
required
applicant
to sign
a waiver of
confidentiality and release of informati
n to allow LAP to report the evaluation and findings to the
committee.
On June 22, 2005, applicant cont
cted LAP and completed the telephone intake process. On
February
16, 2006, the LAP Evaluation
ommittee met to review applicant's participation in LAP.
The LAP Evaluation Committee decid d that applicant had not successfully complied with their
recommendation and thus, terminated a
plicant's participation in LAP.
On
June 7,
2006,
the committ
e advised
applicant that
it declined
to recommend
his
admission
to the
State
Bar
to the
Supr
me Court
of California.
The decision was
reached after
consideration of several factors, includi
g applicant's 2003
conviction for reckless driving, being
disciplined
while a
law student by
UN
V, lack
of candor,
and failure
to satisfy
the
terms of his
abeyance agreement with the committee
IV.
Applicant's Prima
acie Showing of Good Moral
Character
An
applicant's initial
burden
of
stablishing a prima facie
showing is "relatively"
easy
.
It
has
been
met
by
testimonials from
as
w as
two
witnesses
in
addition to
the
testimony
of the
applicant.
(See, e.g ,
Hall v.
Committee
ifBar Examiners
.
(1979)
25
Ca1.3d 730,
734-735
.
)
-4-

A.

A. minor as compared to what he did admit. v. The Committee's ebuttal of Applicant's Prima
minor as compared to what he did admit. v. The Committee's ebuttal of Applicant's Prima
minor as compared to what he did admit.
v. The Committee's
ebuttal of Applicant's Prima Facie Case
The evidenc
The co
Academic Dishonesty
nvestigation - Formal Letter of Warning
A final paper w s one of the requirements of the class.
a disk of the final paper.
Applicant
He s
Appli
several e-mails exchanged between Tratos
and
m his hard drive.
prohibitive.
Ap
licant was
able
to
locate a
rough
ent code
conducted
an investigat
on
as to
whether
he provided
not occur.
At the same
time,
the
0 warning.
-5 -

The court finds that applicant m de a prima facie showing of good moral character based upon

Respondent test" led that he possesses good character and that his omissions

led that he possesses good character and that his omissions d convincing evidence to rebut applicant's

d convincing evidence to rebut applicant's prima facie case

involved applicant's lack of candor at his deposition and

his testimony at trial.

on his application to the State Bar wer

The committee presented clear

of good moral character.

material omissions from and misrepres ntations on his application regarding various issues, such as

his misconduct at UNLV, employmen

substance abuse, DUI conviction, cou

obligations and mental health.

Scholastic Discipline at UNL

1.

In the summer of 2001, applic

Mark Tratos (Tratos).

the students turn in both a hard copy an

copy but did not turn in a disk of the har

copy nor a disc of the paper.

turned in a hard copy of the paper.

in a hard copy of the final paper.

hard disk.

There were

someone to try and retrieve the paper fr

someone

was

too cost

received a passing grade in the class.

As a result of this incident, a stu

and

the school

regarding the submittal of a required pap

found that

academic dishonesty did

consider the decision as a formal letter

history, status with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

appearances, civil actions, residential addresses, financial

rt agrees with most of the committee's contentions.

t emolled in a cyberlaw class, taught by Las Vegas attorney

Tratos required that

Applicant said he turned in a hard

copy. Tratos informed applicant that he had neither a hard

dmitted that he did not turn in a disk, but insisted

that he had

bmitted an affidavit of a student who said she saw him turn

ant was unable to locate the final draft of his paper on the

applicant regarding

hiring

At some point it was decided that

hiring

draft of the

paper and

of conduct complaint was filed against applicant

false statements

to Tratos

r for the cyberlaw course. On November 27,2001, UNLV

school advised

applicant

to

cant misrepresented the outcome of this investigation and the ourt ber 28, 2002 application,applicant wrote:

cant misrepresented the outcome of this investigation and the

ourt

ber 28, 2002 application,applicant wrote:

everal students signed affidavi ts

per

For

.

material

and that no professor

The committee asserts that appl

evidence.

In the attachment to his Septe

"Secondly,the State Bar of Ne ada informed me that another concern regarding my

,,: estigation that was complete y

Dunng the course of the academIC

application arose out of an aca emic dishonesty in

resolved in my favor in Dec ber of 2001

indicating that they had in fact

whether or not I actually wrot

investigation and subsequent N vada Bar inq

e sons t?at e hll

very unclear to me,Mr. Tratos t en instIgated an offiCIal academIC IllvestigatlOn mto

After the student

the matter

judicial affairs officer for my I w school conducted a full investigation

iry

een me tum III thIS p

.

the paper when it was do [sic].

was resolved with a finding th t no academic dishonesty took place on my part."

[Emphasis added.]

The committee argues that ap icant was disingenuous when he stated that the academic

dishonesty investigation was "complet Iy resolved in [his] favor" because the investigation was in

Also,contrary to applicant's statement that several

fact resolved with a formal letter of w mingo

students had signed supporting affidavi s,only one affidavit was ever submitted to the Nevada State

Bar in relation to the inquiry.

that it was not

not

While applicant had clearly exa gerated the outcome of the investigation in

the

That standing alon

However,what is of more conce

does not reflect on his moral character.

"completely" resolved in his favor,give

several affidavits, was

signed,

misrepresentations.

the formal letter of warning,and only one affidavit,and

does not

find

that

applicant

had

made

to this court in terms of whether applicant misrepresented

on the

the outcome of the investigation is appli ant's behavior surrounding the investigation. Based

e-mails exchanged between applicant

Tratos.it is clear that Tratos took no position with respect

Tratos offered to help applicant retrieve

to whether applicant had written or not

his "lost paper" by paying for a data reco

ritten the paper.

ery service.

Instead, applicant sent unprofessional e-mails

At the hearing in

that unnecessarily escalated a frustrating situation for both applicant and Tratos.

this matter,Tratos testified that he foun

would be comfortable in getting those co

on his moral character.

the e-mails troubling and irrational

espondence. Thus,applicant's conduct negatively reflects

-6-

2. Law School Compute - $100 Restitution Fee Question 13.1 of the applicatio states: r
2. Law School Compute - $100 Restitution Fee Question 13.1 of the applicatio states: r
2.
Law School Compute
- $100
Restitution Fee
Question
13.1 of
the applicatio
states:
r
any reason other than academic performance?
Applicant marked the box "yes'
and stated:
" I was fined $100 by UNLV
fo
moving a computer monitor & keyboard
10 feet to
attach to my computer for an h
ur in Dec
01,2002."
The committee contends that ap
date of the incident (the correct date was October
not address why
e
was fined and
he failed
to state that
he did
to disconnect the
compu er.
In fact, he
was assessed a
$100 restitution fee for
eck the computer
systems.
rmission.
The court does
not
find that ap
licant made
material misrepresentations regarding the
computer.
Stating
an incorrect
ate
of the
incident
is
immaterial and
his reasoning
adequate.
This
charact
rization
of the computer
incident
standing alone does
However, what does reflect on
s
Applicant testified that he was not sure whether he had
0 download a program from the
Applicant's testimony
s not credible.
a
comput r monitor,
keyboard
and mouse
set
up
in the
mputer was in an area not for general student use.
-7-

"Have you ever been dropped, suspended, expelled,

or otherwise disciplined by any school

If yes, state

the reasons fully below, providing the n

me of the school, the date, the reasons for discipline, and the

final disposition."

licant made misrepresentations about his scholastic discipline

in this matter because he gave the wron

11, 2001),

his explanation did

not have

the

authorization

university staff time to reconnect and c

And, he used the computer for

law

personal, nonacademic work without p

school

for the

not

$100 fine was

reflect on his moral character.

moral character is his testimony about the incident at this

hearing.

authorization to use the computer

and that he simply knew that he needed

school computer to get his

laptop working.

no

He knew or should have known that he had

authorization to dismantle

microforms

room of the UNLV Law Library as the c

B. Applicant's

Misrepresentat ons

1. Employment History

a.

UNL V Law Lib ary Clerk

Applicant was employed by th

law library at UNLV from October 1999 through May 2000

and was terminated from that positio

for poor performance and for taking $10 from the library

change drawer without permission. Th

committee contends that because applicant omitted from his

initial September 2002 application abou the UNLV library employment, he made a misrepresentation

regarding his employment history.

application, applicant stated:

en explaining his failure to include this employment in his

"I did not feel that working as front desk attendant at the law library, where my duties included checking in and ut books and shelving books constituted law related employment, as described in th moral character applications instructions to Section

4.2.

lasted

longer than six months

period during the winter break fr m classes in December 1999 through January 2000."

Further, it was my belief th t I had not worked at the law library for 'longer than

six months' (the instructions for his section call for listing employment that'

. ' ).

as not employed at the law library for an extended

Yet,in his application for admi sion to the State Bar of Nevada filed on February 2,2001,

applicant listed the dates of his emplo

ent at the law library as October 1999 through May 2000 .

He confirmed the dates of October 1999

of Nevada on March 1,2002.

ough May 2000 at the formal hearing before the State Bar

The court does not find that this

mission was a misrepresentation as the application for the

Nevada State Bar seeks different informa . on from that of the California State Bar. The Nevada State

State Bar asked for any

Bar asked for information on all empl

yment whereas the California

for information on all empl yment whereas the California employment history that lasted longer th n

employment history that lasted longer th n six months.

Since applicant indicated that he was not

employed in December through January

uring the winter break, there is no clear and convincing

Thus, he was not obligated to provide

evidence that his employment lasted long r than six months.

information about his law library emplo

Moreover, characterizing his termination as due to

"managerial conflicts" on the Nevada app ication and explaining on the California application that

There

he was borrowing the $10 overnight and re

rned the money the next morning was sufficient.

is no clear and convincing evidence that hi

his moral character.

borrowing the $10 on an emergency basis reflected upon

- 8 -

clear and convincing evidence that hi his moral character. borrowing the $10 on an emergency basis
b. The committee presented cle and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented the reason for his
b.
The
committee presented
cle
and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented the
reason for his termination from
the
I w firm of Schuering, Zimmerman &
Scully in Sacramento,
California.
State Bar that the law firm let him
On February 23, 2003,ap licant told the California
go because of his recent arrest. But
0 the same day,he
told the Nevada State Bar that he was let
go
order was too far out
because he was not licensed in
Nevada and that the Supreme
Court's deferment
for them to keep
him employed.
discr
The court finds that these
pancies evidence a
lack of candor.2
2.
U.S.
Patent and Trad
ark Office
The committee contends that in
is application,applicant did not disclose that he was applying
to take the examination with the U.S.
atent and Trademark Office in
October 2002 and that he
misrepresented his status as an "Agent'
when he should
have been listed as an
"Attorney" since he
State Bar.
was a member of the Nevada
Applicant passed the October 2
02 examination and on May 2,
2003, he was listed as an
"Agent" with the U.S. Patent and Trade
ark Office,registration
number 53,905. In
his May 31,2004
update,applicant provided a copy of the
U.S. patent and Trademark
Office license,listing applicant
te,applicant stated that he was "[l]icensed as a patent agent
as "Agent. " In his February 15,2007 upd
since May of
2003 (though
upon beco
ing an attorney
as a patent
that may now be classified
attorney. "
As of the hearing,applicant
i listed as an "Agent" with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
According to the U.S. Patent and
rademark Office,if
applicant wanted to seek registration
as
an
of good standing issued within
the last six
attorney, he had to submit an origi al certificate
months from the
Nevada Supreme Court.
ut
because applicant's membership with the
Nevada State
Bar has been conditional,there is
no clea
and convincing
evidence that he was in good standing.
2A year later,in his May 31,2004
pdate to the California bar,applicant finally
reconciled the differences
to not being licensed in
and indicated th t he was terminated "due
Nevada or California.
" In his February 15
that he was let go
2007 update,he again reiterated
"due to the unexpected delay
law in Nevada.
"
in becoming icensed to practice
-9-

Moreover, applicant

was not required to register as an patent attorney and had a choice to remain
was not required
to register as an patent attorney and
had a choice to remain as
Office.
his status
Therefore, he did not misrepresent
an "Agent" with the U.S. Patent and T ademark
as an agent.
His failure to mention 0
the application that he was taking the patent and trademark
examination is insignificant
and does
ot reflect on his moral character.
3. Substance Abuse
More importantly,the
evidence that applicant
commi tee presented clear and convincing
misrepresented his relationship with a cohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the committee.
In his March
19, 2003 update
to the application,applicant responded to the committee's
request for information
about his relati
as follows:
nship with drugs and alcohol
"I started drinking alcohol in
y early twenties and have never been more than a
social drinker
I have not
for drug or
en referred to any treatment programs
alcohol abuse,nor am I current y
emolled in treatment. "
In fact,as part of applicant's
no 0 contendere plea to a violation of California Vehicle Code
23103 on March
11,
2003, applicant
as ordered to attend
eight Alcoholics
Anonymous
(AA)
meetings on June
10,2003. He
complie
with this condition.
In addition, at the informal conference
the first time admitted
to having a history
of alcohol
with the committee on july 8,2004,appl cant for
abuse and been a member
of AA since
anuary 1,2002.
Therefore, the court finds that a
plicant lacked candor in his
March 19,2003 update,given
that he was ordered
to attend eight AA
eetings
alcoholism.
and that he had a history of
When applicant admitted to alco 01
abuse at the
informal conference,the
committee advised
hi
in abeyance
applicant that it would not recommend
admission but offered to hold his application
until January
13, 2005,so that the
his recovery from abuse.
On july 19,
comm ttee could evaluate
2004,applicant executed
wherein
a Stipulation Pu suant to Rule X, Section 4 (abeyance stipulation)
by LAP.
he agreed to have his recovery
from alco 01 abuse monitored
On June 24,2005,applicant
provided an Authorization
for Disclosure
d Release of Information which allowed LAP
to disclose
information to the committee about appli
ant's participation in LAP.
On June 30,2005,applicant emoll
d in LAP.
But on April 7,2006,applicant was terminated
complied
from LAP as the LAP Evaluation Committ
e determined that applicant had not successfully
with its recommendations
and that applic
regarding his alcohol abuse issues.
had not gained insight
-10-
---�---
--------

about his alcohol abuse. He

alcohol in the

LAP.

hand,

physical

and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented the

was arrested for driving a motor vehicle under

d nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code

Significantly, at this hearing, pplicant was completely evasive testified that he was not sure of
Significantly, at this hearing,
pplicant was completely
evasive
testified that he was not sure of the da e
of his sobriety and whether he consumed any
past four years. Applicant did
not pres
nt any credible evidence
on why he was terminated from
that he did n
On one hand, he claimed
t know why he was terminated
from LAP. On the other
he claimed that he was terminated fro
LAP because he would not let LAP jeopardize his
well-being.
reasoning is without merit.
In other word, applicant'
4. March 11, 2003
nUl
The committee presented clea
events surrounding his January
2003 UI arrest in his March
19, 2003 update to
the committee.
As previously found, in January
003, applicant
the influence of marijuana
and later pI
section 23103,
reckless driving.
In his
arch
19, 2003
update to his application, applicant stated:
"While I would like to point ou that I
was not under
the influence of any drug when
I had smoked
I was pulled over for having my
seat belt unfastened, I must admit that
marijuana in the weeks preced'
g
I was
my arrest. I often wore the same sweater
almost nightly to avoid turning
wearing the night I was arrested.
I would were [sic] it
on the heat in
my apartment. The officer must have smelled marijuana on that sweater
smoked marijuana. "
from nights when I had previous y
Applicant misrepresented
the ev nts
surrounding his arrest as
evidenced by the following:
1) a
urine sample
tested positive for
that applicant had
m ij uana; 2) the arresting officer noted
bloodshot, watery eyes, was unsteady
on
of marijuana emanated from
is feet and had a strong odor
his automobile, person and breath; and
) applicant's inability to perform any of the field sobriety
tests administered by the arresting office .
Moreover, California Highway Pat
01 Officer
Jeff George, the
arresting officer in that incident,
marijuana when he was
testified at this hearing that applicant
w clearly under the influence of
arrested.
his.feet, his gums were coated with
The officer testified
that applic
nt was unsteady on
green pasty
sobriety test.
film and he was unable to per orm the field
C. Material Omissions
The
committee
presented clear
d convincing evidence
that applicant made material
as follows
omissions from his application,
-11-
1. State of Nevada - De artment of Motor Vehicles Violations The California State Bar
1.
State of Nevada - De
artment of
Motor Vehicles
Violations
The California State Bar appli
tion requires an applicant
to report all convictions, no matter
how minor the incident,and
traffic viol
tions,including any failure to
appear.
Applicant omitted
the
following information from his applic
tion:
a.
Applicant failed to appe
r for traffic citations
on two separate occasions in Las Vegas
Township Justice Court,Clark County
December 2,1999 (Citation
No. 1-02053878A) and May
16,2001
(Citation Nos.
1-02497085A
d 1-02497085B).
h. Nevada's Depar ment ofMotor Vehicles Convictions
Applicant was convicte
twice of speeding: January
9,2003
(Fallon Justice Court,
Citation No. R l15317) and
January 20,2005 (Reno
Municipal Court, Citation No. 0000982687).
2.
Civil
Judgments and D faults
Applicant did not update his app . cation to
include information
about this topic until after the
committee filed its response listing the
Howing civil cases,judgments
and defaults:
a. River Arms Apar
ments v.
Zachary B. Coughlin,
Washoe County,case No.
REV 2005-001396,an unlawful detaine
action
against applicant for default in payment
of rent at
1255 Jones Street,
#132, Reno, NV
895
3 in the amount of $660.
In April 2005,judgment was
entered for plaintiff,
but applicant has no made any payment.
ents v.
Zachary B.
Coughlin,
h. River Arms Apart
Washoe County,case No.
REV 2006-000909,an unlawful detainer action against applicant for default in payment of rent at
1255
Jones Street #132, Reno, NV
In
April 2006,jUdgment
was
8950 in the amount of $720.
entered for plaintiff,but applicant still
ha
not made any payment.
. Zachary
Coughlin,
c. Shipping Services
Washoe County, case No. RSC
2005-000301,a small
claims action
shipping services for his
again t applicant for non-payment of
memory foam business.
On March 8,200 ,default
judgment for plaintiff
in the amount of $5,161
was
entered. Applicant has not made pay
ent on the judgment against him.
At this hearing,applicant argued
th
t he did not report the
evictions
because he did not realize
they were lawsuits that
should be reporte
. He also claimed that
he did not
report the Shipping
-12-
Services lawsuit because by that time e had been terminated from LAP and he therefore
Services
lawsuit because by that time
e had been terminated from LAP and
he therefore thought he
had no duty to report
the lawsuit bec
mode with the State
Bar.
His
use he was now in a litigation
purported confusion
is incredible and is without merit.
3.
Employment History
Law Firm of
ale Lane
a.
Applicant did not updat
his application to include employment at the law firm of Hale
Lane Peek Dennison
and Howard,P
,from July
17 through December
6, 2005, or that he was
aft
terminated from that position,until
r the committee filed its response listing the omission.
b.
Similarly,it was not u til May 31,
2004,that applicant updated his application to
include self-employment from October 2003
to the present,as follows: "I started a Nevada business
Coughlin's
and have been a sole proprietor,ownin
and running a mattress company, dba,'Zachary
Memory Foam Beds and Pillows. " ,
4.
Address History
Applicant did
not update
his
plication
to include the
following address history until
February 15,2007:
November 2003 -
April 2004:
4263
a.
Greenhorn Ct.,Reno,NV 89509
April- October 2 04:
1044 W.
St.,Reno,NV 89503
1 st
b.
October 2004 - A
ril 2006:
1255
Jones #132,Reno,NV
89503
c.
d
.,Reno,NV
89503
May 2006 - Febru
ry 2007:
945 W. 12thSt
5.
Financial Obligations
Again,applicant did not update
is application to include
his financial obligations to 11
creditors until February 15,2007. Applic
nt testified that he has not paid any of these outstanding
debts:
Creditor
Date Due
Amount Due
Aargon Agency,Inc.
October 2006
$
470
AFNI,Inc.
October 2006
$
148
Chase
January 2007
$
824
-13-
Collection Service of Digestive Health Ce $ December 2006 133 Collection Service of Digestive Health
Collection Service of
Digestive Health Ce
$
December 2006
133
Collection Service of
Digestive Health Ce
January 2007
$
419
River Arms Apartment
November 2006
$1,532
Credit Protections Ass
c/
267
$
Charter Communicat'
January 2007
Macy's
October 2005
$
55
NCO FIN 99/Well
Farg
January 2007
$1,845
Revcare,Inc.!
Reno Regional Medic
I Center
January 2007
$1,200
836
Wells Fargo Bank
November 2005
$
D.
October 2001 Arrest in a The
On October 14,2001,applicant
into a
as arrested after sneaking
Las Vegas movie theater.
As he was running
away from theater
p
sonnel,he was caught and accused of resisting arrest. The
matter was ultimately dismissed
in Janu
ry 2002.
Applicant was not required to re
ort the arrest on his application because it was dismissed.
Nevertheless,he did report it after the c
ittee made an inquiry into
the arrest.
The incident was
insignificant as to his moral character.
Substance Abuse and Mental
E.
The
committee requested
a foren ie/clinical
assessment of applicant,focusing
in particular
suffers from alco
on whether he currently
or dependency,and if so,what
I abuse or other drug abuse
if any monitoring,testing or
treatment is
Accordingly,Dr. Douglas E. Tuck
r,a board certified physician in the field of medicine and
psychiatry,examined applicant on April
7, 2007.
the diagnostic
He reported that applicant met
abuse
and Statistical
criteria for alcohol and marijuana
defined in the DSM-IV _TR (Diagnostic
Manual,4th edition,of
the American Pysch atric Association,2000).
He also reported that applicant
coholism Screening
Test,a
diagnostic questionnaire in
received a score of 14 on the Michigan A
which
a score of three
points or less
is
considered nonalcoholic,four points
is suggestive of
alcoholism,and five points or more indica es a diagnosis of alcoholism.
-14-

In addition to alcohol and rna ijuana abuse, Dr.

Tucker determined that applicant met the

diagnostic criteria for other psychiatric

isorders which

contribute to his liability to abuse substances.

These included ADHD Combined

Typ

(Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder), chronic back and

neck pain, chronic depression,

and pass ve-aggressive and oppositional-defiant

personality traits. Dr.

Tucker could not testify

as to whether

pplicant is currently abusing alcohol or marijuana.

Finally, Dr. Tucker reported th

t applicant has clinically significant pathological personality

traits which have led to distress

as weI

as psychosocial and professional impairment. Applicant's

behavior surrounding the academic dis

onesty investigation by UNLV demonstrates that at the time

of the incident he suffered

from this p

hological personality trait.

The court is concerned whether

pplicant is currently abusing alcohol and marijuana

such that

it would impair his ability

to function

lawyer and/or impact

on his moral character.

Applicant was deliberately

evas ve on the issue

of alcoholism on his application,

during his

deposition and at this hearing.

For

mple, applicant was unable to tell the court anything about

ex

his sobriety, other than the fact that he

ttended AA

meetings.

Therefore, this court cannot at

this

time resolve any reasonable

doubts on t

e issue of alcohol in

applicant's favor because of his lack of

candor and his failure

to present any evi ence of his current state of

sobriety.

Moreover, applicant's mental st

ility concerns this court. Associate

Dean Christine Smith

of the law school

at UNLV testified

that

hile applicant was a student at UNLV, she thought he had

substance

abuse/mental

health issues b cause applicant

exhibited

several instances of

irrational

behavior where he escalated and

misinte

reted certain encounters.

Similarly, at this hearing, applic

repeatedly conducted himself in a most unprofessional

manner, raising sufficiently serious quest

ons regarding his mental condition.

In particular, when he

cross-examined the witnesses, his behavi

r was troUbling.

Applicant ignored the court's instructions

and berated his cyberlaw

instructor, Trat

s, as well as his school, during the

testimony regarding

applicant's 2001

academic dishonesty i

estigation.

He was totally disrespectful, unnecessarily

hostile, and downright rude

and arrogan

to Highway Patrol Officer Jeff George concerning his

January 2003 DUI arrest.

And,

when th

Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer Juan Cho was

testifying

about the

2001

movie theater

arrest, applicant

totally unprofessional, rude, and

was

Officer Juan Cho was testifying about the 2001 movie theater arrest, applicant totally unprofessional, rude, and
Officer Juan Cho was testifying about the 2001 movie theater arrest, applicant totally unprofessional, rude, and
Officer Juan Cho was testifying about the 2001 movie theater arrest, applicant totally unprofessional, rude, and
belligerent towards the officer. He c nstantly interrupted the officer's testimony and belittled him at
belligerent towards the officer. He c nstantly interrupted the officer's testimony and belittled him at
belligerent towards the officer.
He c
nstantly interrupted the officer's testimony and belittled him
at every opportunity.
Thus, applicant's substance a
use and mental health
stability are at issue and unresolved.
VI. Applicant
as Failed to Prove His Rehabilitation
This court has found
that the
ommittee has sustained
its burden of proof in rebutting the
applicant's prima facie case with res
ct to the following claims:
applicant's lack of candor at his
deposition and material omissions fro
and misrepresentations on his application regarding various
issues,such as his misconduct at UNL
,employment history,substance abuse,DDI conviction,court
appearances, civil actions,
residential
ddresses,financial obligations and mental health.
Applicant has the burden to es
blish his rehabilitation.
But very little,if any,evidence was
offered by applicant
with respect to hi
rehabilitation.
and truthfulness on the part of the
Seeking admission calls for "a high degree of frankness
[applicant] making application for
adm ssion to practice
law in this state,but no good reason presents
itself why such a high standard
of integ ity should
not be required. This duty to make a full disclose
is an absolute duty."
(Spears v.
The St te Bar (1930) 211
Cal.
183, 187.)
current and must update
Applicant is under a continuing
obligation to keep his application
responses whenever there
is an additi
furnished the
n to or a change to information previously
Admissi
n to Practice Law, rule VI, § 7.)
committee. (Rules Regulating
Although applicant
submitted si
updates on his application
from January
2003 to February
2007,
the information provided were no
to information
true updates in that they were not changes
Bu
rather,applicant was constantly amending his application
previously furnished the committee.
Applicant cannot show that his
due to his repeated significant omissio
s from the application.
on on his application
was unintentional or mere negligence.
repeated failure to fully disclose informat
(Cf. Hallinan
v. Committee ofBar Exa
iners (1966) 65 Ca1.2d
447, 473.)
More importantly, the
material and
numerous omissions not onl
reflect applicant's cavalier
attitude toward the application
adversely on his
(Cf.
process but also reflect
oral fitness to practice law.
In re Gossage (2000) 23
Cal.4th
1080, 1098.)
-16-
---
--'--- --

-17-

-17- s not only reflect a pattern of lack of candor but also a lack of

s not only reflect a pattern of lack of candor but also a lack of

Moreover, applicant's omissi

appreciation for details and full discl

ure in documents he verifies under penalty of perjury as true

in documents he verifies under penalty of perjury as true a n d c o m

and complete. Completion of the ap

practice.

(Cf. In

ication is not merely an exercise on the way to admission to

1990) 1

Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.

25,

34.)

the Matter of Gidd ns

(R eview Dept.

Repeated acts of negligence or omiss'

n may constitute moral turpitude and "prove as great a lack

(Bruns v. The State Bar

(1941) 18 Cal.2d

of fitness to practice law as affirmative violations of duty."

to practice law as affirmative violations of duty." 667, 672.) Applicant has a heavy burden this

667, 672.)

Applicant has a heavy burden

this case. Considering the mUltiple acts of misconduct, he

must present evidence of rehabilitation by his sustained conduct over an extended period of time that

he is a person of good moral character

Cases authorizing admission on the basis of rehabilitation

commonly involve a substantial perio

of exemplary conduct following the applicant's misdeeds.

(In re Gossage, supra, 23 Cal. 4th at p. 1096; see also Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 1 061,

1071-1072 [emphasizing seven or eigh -year period that elapsed since applicant wrongfully evaded

-year period that elapsed since applicant wrongfully evaded payment of a civil judgment]; Martin B v.

payment of a civil judgment]; Martin B v. Committee olBar Examiners (1983) 33 Ca1.3d 7 17, 726

[emphasizing nine-year unblemished r cord after applicant was accused of rape as a Marine]; Hall

v.

Committee olBar Examiners (1979)

were

5 Cal.3d 730, 742 [emphasizing six-year period in which no

after his business

license was

complaints

lodged against applic

nt's employment business

temporarily suspended by an administr

It is

ive agency].)

Here, applicant did not present an evidence of rehabilitation over a substantial period of time.

abuse problems.

What little evidence applicant

In

short, there was little

Also, applicant

clear that in the past applicant ha

alcohol

presented on rehabilitation with respect t

alcoholism was all self-reported.

credible evidence presented that applica

no longer has a substance abuse problem.

appears to be suffering from certain psyc

iatric disorders including ADHD, chronic depression, and

passive-aggressive and oppositional-defi

nt personality traits, which appeared to have affected his

He was never on time

behavior in this trial. Applicant's conduc

was unprofessional and troubling.

for the hearing and he randomly berated

no sense.

d belittled witnesses

under circumstances where it made

--------�----�-�-

the W h e t h e r a n i n d i v

the

Whether an individual is a fit

Committee of Bar Exa

d proper person to be permitted to practice law usually turns

iners (1966) 65 Ca1.2d 447, 453.)

ankness and truthfulness during the admissions process

the state of mind