ONFIDENTIAL

FILED
AUG 2 0 Z007
STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
SAN FRANCISCO
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DE ARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter of
ZACHARY BARKER COU6HLIN,

Applicant for Admission.

Case No. 06-M-13755-PEM

)
)
)
)
)
)

DECISION

-------r-)
I. Introduction

After receiving an adverse m ral character determination from the Committee of Bar
Examiners of the State Bar of California committee),applicant Zachary Barker Coughlin appeals
that decision and seeks a de novo dete

ination of his moral character from this court. Applicant

represented himself. The committee w

represented by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the

State Bar of California,by and through

eputy Trial Counsel Susan 1. Kagan.

A four-day hearing was held on

ay

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
good moral character necessary for ad ission to the practice of law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, 6060,
subd.(b);! Rules Regulating Admission 0 Practice Law,rule x.)
II. Mora Character Determination

Applicants for admission to pra tice law must possess good moral character (Bus. & Prof.
Code, 6060, subd;. (b)), which incl

es traits of "honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness,

observance of fiduciary responsibility, espect for and obedience to the laws of the state and the
nation and respect for the rights of others

lFurther references to sections

unless otherwise noted.

d for the judicial process." (Rules Regulating Admission

e to the provisions of the Business and Professions Code,

to Practice Law, rule

moral fitness.

X,

1.) An app icant for admission has the burden to prove his or her own

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.
favor.

(Id.

at p. 1096.) All reasonable doubts are ordinarily resolved in the applicant's

(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.
compliance with the following terms:

The deferral was conditioned on applicant's

(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-

the probationary period attesting to his

mpliance with the conditions; and

Supreme Court Rules and the Rules of

rofessional Conduct of the State Bar of Nevada.

On December

21, 2004,

(4) abide by the Nevada

the N vada Committee reported that applicant had successfully

completed and fully complied with the

rms of the conditions of his deferral agreement throughout

the deferral period and recommende

that applicant be admitted to the State Bar of Nevada

conditioned again on the terms of his d ferral as set forth above. On March
Court of Nevada issued an order ad

25, 2005, the

Supreme

itting applicant as a member of the Nevada State Bar.

However, that admission was conditio ed until

2008

on the terms of probations as set forth in his

deferral agreement.

2002 Application for Admissi n to Practice Law in the State of California

C.

On September

28, 2002,

appli ant filed an application for admission to the State Bar of

California. Thereafter, he submitted u dates and amendments to his application on six separate
occasions - January

2004;

and February
On January

9, 2003;

February

3, 2003;

March

19, 2003;

September

15, 2003;

May

31,

15, 2007.
7, 2003,

the com

ittee wrote to the Nevada Committee requesting material

assistance in its investigation of app]" ant.

On January

9, 2003,

applicant supplemented and

corrected his September 2002 applicati n. Applicant told of the Nevada Supreme Court's deferral
of his application for a license to practi e law in Nevada, indicated that he had passed the October

2002

k Office Patent Attorney Examination and submitted the

United States Patent and Tradem

names of five character references.

On February 23, 2003, applicant

rote to the committee that he had been arrested on January

23, 2003, for driving under the influenc

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

at Schuering, Zimmerman & Scully. 0 March

5, 2003, the committee asked applicant to provide

a copy of his police report from the arres ing agency regarding his January
to describe his relationship with alcoho and/or drugs. On March
committee and confirmed that he pled
California Vehicle Code section

23103

010

contendere on March

( ry reckless).

-3-

2003 arrest for DUI and

19, 2003,
11, 2003,

applicant wrote the

to a violation of the

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
The stipulation required applicant to

alcohol abuse would be monitored by an agent from LAP.

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
disci plined 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

An applicant's initial burden of
has been met by testimonials from as
applicant. (See, e.g.,

Hall

v.

acie Showing of Good Moral Character

stablishing a prima facie showing is "relatively" easy. It
w as two witnesses in addition to the testimony of the

Committee ifBar Examiners

-4-

(1979) 25 Ca1.3d 730, 734-735.)

The court finds that applicant m de a prima facie showing of good moral character based upon
his testimony at trial. Respondent test" led that he possesses good character and that his omissions
on his application to the State Bar wer minor as compared to what he did admit.

v. The Committee's
The committee presented clear

ebuttal of Applicant's Prima Facie Case

d convincing evidence to rebut applicant's prima facie case

of good moral character. The evidenc involved applicant's lack of candor at his deposition and
material omissions from and misrepres ntations on his application regarding various issues, such as
his misconduct at UNLV, employmen history, status with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
substance abuse, DUI conviction, cou

appearances, civil actions, residential addresses, financial

obligations and mental health. The co rt agrees with most of the committee's contentions.

A.

Scholastic Discipline at UNL

1.

Academic Dishonesty nvestigation - Formal Letter of Warning

In the summer of 2001, applic

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

Mark Tratos (Tratos). A final paper w s one of the requirements of the class. Tratos required that
the students turn in both a hard copy an a disk of the final p aper. Applicant said he turned in a hard
copy but did not turn in a disk of the har copy. Tratos informed applicant that he had neither a hard
copy nor a disc of the paper. Applicant dmitted that he did not turn in a disk, but insisted that he had
turned in a hard copy of the paper. He s bmitted an affidavit of a student who said she saw him turn
in a hard copy of the final paper. Appli ant was unable to locate the final draft of his paper on the
hard disk. There were several e-mails exchanged between Tratos and applicant regarding hiring
someone to try and retrieve the paper fr m his hard drive. At some point it was decided that hiring
someone was too cost prohibitive.

A p licant was able to locate a rough draft of the paper and

received a passing grade in the class.

As a result of this incident, a stu ent code of conduct complaint was filed against applicant
and the school conducted an investigat on as to whether he provided false statements to Tratos
regarding the submittal of a required pap r for the cyberlaw course. On November 27,2001, UNLV
found that academic dishonesty did not occur. At the same time, the school advised applicant to
consider the decision as a formal letter 0 warning.

The committee asserts that appl cant misrepresented the outcome of this investigation and the
evidence.
In the attachment to his Septe ber 28, 2002 application,applicant wrote:
"Secondly,the State Bar of Ne ada informed me that another concern regarding my
application arose out of an aca emic dishonesty in,,:estigation that was completey
resolved in my favor in Dec
ber of 2001.. Dunng the course of the academIC
investigation and subsequent N vada Bar inqiry everal students signed affidavits
.
indicating that they had in fact een me tum III thIS pper. ... For esons t?at e hll
.
very unclear to me,Mr. Tratos t en instIgated an offiCIal academIC IllvestigatlOn mto
whether or not I actually wrot the paper when it was do [sic]. After the student
judicial affairs officer for my I w school conducted a full investigation...the matter
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
fact resolved with a formal letter of w mingo Also,contrary to applicant's statement that several
students had signed supporting affidavi s,only one affidavit was ever submitted to the Nevada State
Bar in relation to the inquiry.
While applicant had clearly exa gerated the outcome of the investigation in that it was not
"completely" resolved in his favor,give the formal letter of warning,and only one affidavit,and not
several affidavits, was signed, the

ourt does not find that applicant had made material

misrepresentations. That standing alon does not reflect on his moral character.
However,what is of more conce

to this court in terms of whether applicant misrepresented

the outcome of the investigation is appli ant's behavior surrounding the investigation. Based on the
e-mails exchanged between applicant an Tratos.it is clear that Tratos took no position with respect
to whether applicant had written or not

ritten the paper. Tratos offered to help applicant retrieve

his "lost paper" by paying for a data reco ery service. Instead, applicant sent unprofessional e-mails
that unnecessarily escalated a frustrating situation for both applicant and Tratos. At the hearing in
this matter,Tratos testified that he foun the e-mails troubling and irrational and that no professor
would be comfortable in getting those co espondence. Thus,applicant's conduct negatively reflects
on his moral character.

-6-

2.

Law School Compute

$100 Restitution Fee

13.1 of the applicatio

states: "Have you ever been dropped, suspended, expelled,

or otherwise disciplined by any school

r any reason other than academic performance? If yes, state

Question

the reasons fully below, providing the n me of the school, the date, the reasons for discipline, and the
final disposition."
Applicant marked the box "yes' and stated:
" I was fined $100 by UNLV fo moving a com puter monitor & keyboard
attach to my computer for an h ur in Dec 01, 2002."

10 feet

to

The committee contends that ap licant made misrepresentations about his scholastic discipline
in this matter because he gave the wron date of the incident (the correct date was October

his explanation did not address why

11, 2001),

e was fined and he failed to state that he did not have

authorization to disconnect the compu er. In fact, he was assessed a

$100

restitution fee for the

university staff time to reconnect and c eck the computer systems. And, he used the computer for
personal, nonacademic work without p rmission.
The court does not find that ap licant made material misrepresentations regarding the law
school computer. Stating an incorrect

$100

fine was adequate.

ate of the incident is immaterial and his reasoning for the

This charact rization of the computer incident standing alone does not

reflect on his moral character.

However, what does reflect on

s moral character is his testimony about the incident at this

hearing. Applicant testified that he was not sure whether he had authorization to use the computer
and that he simply knew that he needed

0 download a program from the school computer to get his

laptop working. Applicant's testimony s not credible. He knew or should have known that he had
no authorization to dismantle a comput r monitor, keyboard and mouse set up in the microforms
room of the UNLV Law Library as the c mputer was in an area not for general student use.

-7-

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. W en explaining his failure to include this employment in his
application, applicant stated:

"I did not feel that working as

duties included checking in and
employment, as described in th
4.2. Further, it was my belief th
six months' (the instructions for
longer than six months .. . ' ). I
period during the winter break fr

front desk attendant at the law library, where my

ut books and shelving books constituted law related
moral character applications instructions to Section
t I had not worked at the law library for 'longer than
his section call for listing employment that' ...lasted
as not employed at the law library for an extended
m classes in December 1999 through January 2000."

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

ough May 2000 at the formal hearing before the State Bar

of Nevada on March 1,2002.

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
Bar asked for information on all empl yment whereas the California State Bar asked for any
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
evidence that his employment lasted long r than six months. Thus, he was not obligated to provide
information about his law library emplo

ent. Moreover, characterizing his termination as due to

"managerial conflicts" on the Nevada app ication and explaining on the California application that
he was borrowing the $10 overnight and re

rned the money the next morning was sufficient. There

is no clear and convincing evidence that hi borrowing the $10 on an emergency basis reflected upon
his moral character.

b.

The committee presented cle

and convincing evidence that applicant

misrepresented the
reason for his termination from the I
w firm of Schuering, Zimmerman & Scu
lly in Sacramento,
California. On February 23, 2003, ap
licant told the California State Bar that
the law firm let him
go because of his recent arrest. But 0
the same day,he told the Nevada State
Bar that he was let go
because he was not licensed in Nevada
and that the Supreme Court's deferment
order was too far out
for them to keep him employed.
The court finds that these discr pancies
evidence a lack of candor.2
2.

U.S. Patent and Trad

ark Office

The committee contends that in is applica

tion,applicant did not disclose that

he was applying
to take the examination with the U.S
. atent and Trademark Office in Oct
ober 2002 and that he
misrepresented his status as an "Agent'
when he should have been listed as an
"Attorney" since he
was a member of the Nevada State
Bar.
Applicant passed the October
"Agent " with the U.S. Patent and Tra
de
update,applicant provided a cop

2 02

examination and on May

2, 2003, he

ark Office,registration number 53,

905.

y of the U.S. patent and Tradem

ark Office lice

was listed as an

In his May 31,2004

nse,listing applicant
as "Agent. " In his February 15,200
7 upd te,applicant stated
that he was " [l]icensed as a patent
agent
since May of 2003 (though upo
n beco ing an attorney that
may now be classified as a
patent
attorney. " As of the hearing, app
licant i listed as an "Agen t" wit
h the U.S. Patent and Tradem
ark
Office.
According to the U.S. Patent
and rademark Office,if app
licant wanted to seek registratio
n
as an attorney, he had to submi
t an origi al certificate of goo
d standing issued within the
last six
months from the Nevada Supre
me Court. ut because applica
nt's membership with the Ne
vada State
Bar has been conditional, the
re is no clea and convincing
evidence that he was in good
standing.
2A year later,in his May 31,20
04 pdate to the Califo
rnia bar,applicant finally
reconciled the differences and
indicated th t he was terminat
ed
"due to not being licensed in
Nevada or California. " In his
February 15 2007 update,he
again reiterated that he was let
"due to the unexpected delay in
go
becoming icensed to practice
law in Nevada. "

-9-

Moreover, applicant was not required

to regi
an "Agent" with the U.S. Patent and

ster as an patent attorney and had a cho

ice to remain as

T ademark Office. Therefore, he did

not misrepresent his stat

us
as an agent. His failure to mention
0 the application that he was
taking the patent and trademark
examination is insignificant and doe
s ot reflect on his moral character.
3.

Substance Abuse

More importantly,the commi tee pres

ented clear and convincing evidenc
e that applicant
misrepresented his relationship with
a cohol and treatment for alcohol abu
se to the committee.
In his March 19, 2003 update to the
application,applicant responded to
the committee's
request for information about his rela
ti nship with drugs and alcohol as foll
ows:

"I started drinking alcohol in y earl

y twenties and have never been mor
e than a
social drinker . . . I have not en
referred to any treatment programs
for drug or
alcohol abuse,nor am I current y em
olled in treatment. "
In fact,as part of applicant's no 0 con
tendere plea to a violation of Californ
ia Vehicle Code
23103 on March 11, 2003, applica
nt as ordered to attend eight Alc
oholics Anonymous (AA)
meetings on June 10,2003. He com
plie with this condition. In additio
n, at the informal conference
with the committee on july 8,2004,
appl cant for the first time admitte
d to having a history of alcohol
abuse and been a member of AA sinc
e anuary 1, 2002.
Therefore, the court finds that a
plicant lacked candor in his Ma
rch 19, 2003 update,given
that he was ordered to attend eig
ht AA eetings and that he had
a history of alcoholism.
When applicant admitted to alco
01 abuse at the informal con
ference,the committee advised
applicant that it would not recom
mend hi admission but offered
to hold his application in abeyan
ce
until January 13, 2005, so that the
comm ttee could evaluate his rec
overy from abuse. On july 19,
2004,applicant executed a Sti
pulation Pu suant to Rule X, Sec
tion 4 (abeyance stipulation) wh
erein
he agreed to have his recovery
from alco 01 abuse monitored
by LAP. On June 24, 2005, app
licant
provided an Authorization for Dis
closure d Release of Informatio
n which allowed LAP to disclo
se
information to the committee abo
ut appli ant's participation in LA
P.
On June 30,2005,applicant em
oll d in LAP. But on April 7,2006
,applicant was terminated
from LAP as the LAP Evaluatio
n Committ e determined that app
licant had not successfully com
plied
with its recommendations and tha
t applic had not gained insigh
t regarding his alcohol abuse issu
es.

-10-

--

---- -------

Significantly, at this hearing, pplican

t was completely evasive about

his alcohol abuse. He

testified that he was not sure of the da
e of his sobriety and whether he consum
ed any alcohol in the
past four years. Applicant did not pres
nt any credible evidence on why he was
terminated from LAP.
On one hand, he claimed that he did
n t know why he was terminated from
LAP. On the other hand,
he claimed that he was terminated fro
LAP because he would not let LAP jeo
pardize his physical
well-being. In other word, applicant'
reasoning is without merit.
4.

March 11, 2003 nUl

The committee presented clea and con

vincing evidence that applicant misrepr
esented the
events surrounding his January 2003
UI arrest in his March 19, 2003 update
to the committee.
As previously found, in January 003
, applicant was arrested for driving a mot
or vehicle under
the influence of marijuana and late
r pI d nolo contendere to a violation
of California Vehicle Code
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 was pulled over for having my
seat belt unfastened, I must admit
that I had smoked
marijuana in the weeks preced
' g my arrest. I often wore the
same sweater I was
wearing the night I was arrested
. I would were [sic] it almost nig
htly to avoid turning
on the heat in my apartment. The
off
from nights when I had previous icer must have smelled marijuana on that sweater
y smoked marijuana. "
Applicant misrepresented the
ev nts surrounding his arrest
as evidenced by the following
:
1) a urine sample tested pos
itive for m ijuana; 2) the arr
esting officer noted that app
licant had
bloodshot, watery eyes, was uns
teady on is feet and had a stro
ng odor of marijuana emanated
from
his automobile, person and
breath; and ) applicant's ina
bility to perform any of the
field sobriety
tests administered by the arrest
ing office .
Moreover, California Highway
Pat 01 Officer Jeff George, the
arresting officer in that incide
nt,
testified at this hearing that
applicant w clearly under
the influence of marijuana
when he was
arrested. The officer testified
that applic nt was unsteady
on his.feet, his gums were coa
ted with
green pasty film and he was
unable to per orm the field
sobriety test.

C.

Material Omissions

The committee presented

clear
omissions from his applicati
on, as fol

lows

d convincing evidence tha

t applicant made material

-11-

1.

State of Nevada - De artment

of Motor Vehicles Violations

The California State Bar appli tion requ

ires an applicant to report all convictions
, no matter
how minor the incident,and traffic viol
tions,including any failure to appear. App
licant omitted the
following information from his applic
tion:
a.

Applicant failed to appe r for traffic cita

tions on two separate occasions in Las Veg
as
Township Justice Court, Clark County
December 2, 1999 (Citation No. 1-02053
878A) and May
16,2001 (Citation Nos. 1-02497085A
d 1-02497085B).
h.

Nevada's Depar ment ofMotor Vehicles

Convictions

Applicant was convicte twice of spee

ding: 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 . cati

on to include information about this

committee filed its response listing

the

topic until after the

Howing civil cases,judgments and

default

s:
River Arms Apar ments v. Zachar
y B. Coughlin, Washoe County,
case No.
REV 2005-001396, an unlawful det
aine action against applicant for
default in payment of rent at
1255 Jones Street, #132, Reno,
NV 895 3 in the amount of $66
0. In April 2005,judgment wa
s
entered for plaintiff, but applica
nt has no made any payment.
a.

h.

River Arms Apart ents v. Zac

hary B. Coughlin, Washoe Co
unty, case No.
REV 2006-000909, an unlawful
detainer action against applicant
for default in payment of rent at
1255 Jones Street #132, Reno,
NV 8950 in the amount of $72
0. In April 2006,jUdgment wa
s
entered for plaintiff, but applica
nt still ha not made any payme
nt.
c.
Shipping Services . Zachar
y Coughlin, Washoe County,
case No. RSC
2005-000301, a small claims
action again t applicant for non
-payment of shipping services
for his
memory foam business. On Ma
rch 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 evictio
ns because he did not realize
they were lawsuits that should
be reporte . He also claimed
that he did not report the Shippi
ng

-12-

Services lawsuit because by that tim

e e had been terminated from LAP

and

he therefore thought he
had no duty to report the lawsuit bec
use he was now in a litigation mode
with the State Bar. His
purported confusion is incredible and
is without merit.
3.

Employment History

a.

Law Firm of ale Lane

Applicant did not updat his applica

tion to include employmen

t at the law firm of Hale

Lane Peek Dennison and Howard,
P ,from July 17 through Decemb
er 6, 2005, or that he was
terminated from that position,until
aft r the committee filed its respons
e listing the omission.
b.
Similarly,it was not u til May 31,
2004, that applicant updated his app
lication to
include self-employment from Oct
ober 2003 to the present,as follow
s: "I started a Nevada business
and have been a sole proprietor,ow
nin and running a mattress com
pany, dba,'Zachary Coughlin's
Memory Foam Beds and Pillow ,
s. "
4.

Address History

Applicant did not update his

February 15,2007:

5.

plication to include the follow

ing address history until

a.

November 2003 - April 2004:

b.

April- October 2 04:

c.

October 2004 - A ril 2006:

May 2006 - Febru ry 2007:

4263 Greenhorn Ct.,Reno,

NV 89509
1044 W. 1 st St.,Reno,NV 895
03
1255 Jones #132, Reno,NV
89503
945 W. 12 thSt ,Reno,NV
89503
.

Financial Obligation
s

Again,applicant did not up

date is application to inc
lude his financial obligation
s to 11
creditors until February 15,2
007. Applic nt testified tha
t he has not paid any of the
se outstanding
debts:
Creditor

Aargon Agency,Inc.
AFNI,Inc.
Chase

-13-

Date Due

Amount Due

October 2006

$ 470

October 2006

$ 148

January 2007

$ 824

D.

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/

Charter Communicat'

January 2007

$ 267

Macy's

October 2005

NCO FIN 99/Well Farg

January 2007

$1,845

Revcare,Inc.!
Reno Regional Medic I Center

January 2007

$1,200

Wells Fargo Bank

November 2005

$ 836

55

October 2001 Arrest in a The

On October 14, 2001,applicant

As he was running away from theater

as arrested after sneaking into a Las Veg

p sonnel,he was caught and accused

of

matter was ultimately dismissed in Jan

as movie theater.

resisting arrest. The

u ry 2002.

Applicant was not required to re ort

the arrest on his application becaus
e it was dismissed.
Nevertheless,he did report it after
the c
ittee made an inquiry into the arre
st. The incident was
insignificant as to his moral charac
ter.
E.

Substance Abuse and Menta

l

The committee requested a foren

ie/clinical assessment of applica
nt,focusing in particular
on whether he currently suffers
from alco I abuse or other dru
g abuse or dependency,and if so,
what
if any monitoring,testing or trea
tment is
Accordingly,Dr. Douglas E. Tuc
k r,a board certified physician
in

the field of medicine and

psychiatry,examined applica
nt on April 7, 2007. He reporte
d that applicant met the diagno
stic
criteria for alcohol and mariju
ana abuse
defined in the DSM-IV TR (Di
agnostic and Statistical
Manual,4th edition,of the Am
erican Pysch atric Association,
2000). He also reported that
applicant
received a score of 14 on the
Michigan A coholism Screening
Test,a diagnostic questionnaire
in
which a score of three points
or less is considered nonalc
oholic, four points is sugges
tive of
alcoholism,and five points or mo
re indica es a diagnosis of alcoho
lism.
_

-14-

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 Defic
it-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 curre
ntly 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 investigati
on by UNLV demonstrates that at the time
of the incident he suffered from this p hological personality
trait.
In

The court is concerned whether pplicant is currently abusi

ng alcohol and marijuana such
it would impair his ability to function

that

a lawyer and/or impact on his moral character.

Applicant was deliberately evas ve on the issue of alcoh

olism on his application, during his
deposition and at this hearing. For ex mple, applicant
was unable to tell the court anything about
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 thou
ght he had
substance abuse/mental health issues b
cause applicant exhibited several instance
s of irrational
behavior where he escalated and misinte
reted certain encounters.
Similarly, at this hearing, applic

t repeatedly conducted himself in a mos

t unprofessional

manner, raising sufficiently serious que

st 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 test
imony regarding
applicant's 2001 academic dishonesty
i estigation. He was totally disrespe
ctful, unnecessarily
hostile, and downright rude and arro
gan to Highway Patrol Officer Jeff
George concerning his
January 2003 DUI arrest. And, when
th Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Officer Juan Cho was
testifying about the 2001 movie thea
ter arrest, applicant was totally unp
rofessional, rude, and

-15-

belligerent towards the officer. He c nstantly interr

upted the officer's testimony and belittled him
at every opportunity.
Thus, applicant's substance a use and mental health
stability are at issue and unres

olved.

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 follo
wing claims: applicant's lack of candor at his
deposition and material omissions fro and misreprese
ntations on his application regarding various
issues,such as his misconduct at UNL ,employment
history, substance abuse,DDI conviction,court
appearances, civil actions, residential ddresses, finan
cial obligations and mental health.
Applicant has the burden to es blish his rehabilitat
ion. But very little, if any, evidence was
offered by applicant with respect to hi rehabilitation.
Seeking admission calls for "a high degree of frank
ness and truthfulness on the part of the
[applicant] making application for adm ssion to
practice law in this state,but no good reason pres
ents
itself why such a high standard of integ ity shou
ld 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.)
Applicant is under a continuing obligati
on to keep his applica

tion current and must update

responses whenever there is an additi
n to or a change to information previous
ly furnished the
committee. (Rules Regulating Admissi
n to Practice Law, rule VI, 7.)
Although applicant submitted si upd
ates on his application from January

2007, the information provided wer

e no true updates in that they were
not cha

2003 to February

nges to information
previously furnished the committee.
Bu rather, applicant was constantly
amending his application
due to his repeated significant omissi
o s from the application. Applica
nt cannot show that his
repeated failure to fully disclose info
rmat on on his application was uninten
tional or mere negligence.
(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 atti
tude toward the application
process but also reflect adversely on
his oral fitness to practice law.
(Cf. In re Gossage (2000) 23
Cal.4th 1080, 1098.)

-16--'--- ----

Moreover, applicant's omissi

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

appreciation for details and full discl ure in documents he verifies under penalty of perjury as true
and complete. Completion of the ap ication is not merely an exercise on the way to admission to
practice. (Cf. In the Matter of Gidd ns (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 25, 34.)
Repeated acts of negligence or omiss' n may constitute moral turpitude and "prove as great a lack
of fitness to practice law as affirmative violations of duty." (Bruns v. The State Bar (1941) 1 8 Cal.2d
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. 1 096; see also Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 1 06 1 ,

1 07 1 -1 072 [emphasizing seven or eigh -year period that elapsed since applicant wrongfully evaded
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) 5 Cal.3d 730, 742 [emphasizing six-year period in which no

complaints were lodged against applic nt's employment business after his business license was
temporarily suspended by an administr ive agency].)
Here, applicant did not present an evidence of rehabilitation over a substantial period of time.
It is clear that in the past applicant ha alcohol abuse problems. What little evidence applicant
presented on rehabilitation with respect t alcoholism was all self-reported. In short, there was little
credible evidence presented that applica

no longer has a substance abuse problem. Also, applicant

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
behavior in this trial. Applicant's conduc was unprofessional and troubling. He was never on time
for the hearing and he randomly berated

d belittled witnesses under circumstances where it made

no sense.

-17--------------

Whether an individual is a fit

d proper person to be permitted to practice law usually turns

upon whether that person has commi ed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.
(Hallinan

v.

Committee of Bar Exa iners (1966) 65 Ca1.2d 447, 453.) Applicant's repeated

violations of his absolute duty of

ankness and truthfulness during the admissions process

demonstrate that he has yet to attai

the state of mind necessary to achieve reformation and

regeneration and is little different fro

the person who behaved so poorly in the past. Furthermore,

his evasive testimony regarding his al ohol abuse evidencing lack of candor precludes any finding
of exemplary conduct over a meaning I period of time. Therefore,the court cannot conclude that
applicant is not likely to continue to c

mit acts of moral turpitude.

Each act of applicant's misco duct is not so serious as to find him lacking good moral
character. But,in examining the combi ed record of his multiple acts,particularly his lack of candor
and irrational,combative behavior thr ughout these proceedings,the court is confronted not by
isolated or uncharacteristic acts but by a continuing course of misconduct extending over a period of
several years. The risk of applicant repe ting this misconduct is considerable. Thus,the court cannot
find applicant to possess the requisite g od moral character for admission.
Nevertheless,it is possible that i applicant submits an application that is detailed, complete
and accurate,if he seeks and undergoes ubstance abuse/mental health treatment over

an

extended

period of time,if he can show good fa th in satisfying the judgment creditors,and if he obtains
unconditional admittance to the Nevada tate Bar in 2008,then applicant may be heading to the right
direction in satisfying his heavy burden

ith such favorable evidence of exemplary conduct over a

lengthy period to demonstrate rehabilitat on.

But, as of now, based on the

aterial omissions from and misrepresentations on the

application,applicant's failure to satisfy h s financial obligations,his evasive testimony regarding his

substance abuse issues and his erratic,h stile and belligerent behavior at trial,the court finds that
applicant has failed to demonstrate his re abilitation.

-18-

II. CONCLUSION

Therefore, applicant Zachary Barker Coughlin has failed to establish that he currently
possesses the requisite good moral c

acter for admission to the practice of law in the State of

California.

Dated: August

rt-, 2007

PAT McELROY
Judge of the State B

-19-

CERT FICATE OF SERVICE

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

I am a Case Administrator of the Stat Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and
not a party to the within proceeding. ursuant to standard court practice,in the City and County of
San Francisco,on August 20, 2007, I eposited a true copy of the following document(s):
DECISION

in a sealed envelope for collection an mailing on that date as follows:

[ X]

by first-class mail,with posta e thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at San Francisco,Cali mia,addressed as follows:

ZACHARY B. COU

LIN

945 W. 12TH ST.

RENO, NV 89503

[ X]

by interoffice mail through a

addressed as follows:

cility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California

SUSAN KAGAN , Ent rcement, San Francisco

I hereby certify that the foregoing is tr e and correct. Executed in San Francisco,California,on
August 20, 2007.

;
I'

,l:::::lt"-

,.,..",/
.

",

'
-

'4

- --. ---. --. y --e.

'",Lauretta Cramer

Case Administrator
State Bar Court

Certificate of Service. wpt

,/

\,,",.:::',--,

. ,'"

1:.,2%, ( C)t;r:-,o/p'7t.-C_J'-,
''-<... .

"
...".....' .

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 of eighteen and not a party to
the within proceeding. Pursuant to
on February 6,2008, 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

{X]

89503

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

of Service. wpt