5 8, 9, 10, and 22nd, 2007 All Four Trial Dates Combined Transcript in Re Coughlin 06-M-13755 CBX

1
2
3
4
5
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO
8
ms.
9
IN MATTER OF APPLICANT
FOR ADMISSION
10
ZACHARY BARKER
11
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
)
)
)
) Case No: 06-M-13755-PEM
)
)
)
)
12
13
14
15
16
Trial on Application for Admission to Practice Law

May 8, 9, 10, and 22, 2007
San Francisco, California
17
18
Judge Patrice McElroy
19
20
21
22
23
24
Also Present:
Susan I. Kagan, Esq.
Deputy Trial Counsel, State Bar of California
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
Applicant
25
26
27
28
1/433
Complete Transcript of All Four Days of Trial, In Re Coughlin 06-M-13755
5/8/07 Transcript:
1
2
Judge McElroy: This is the matter of Zachary Coughlin case
number 06-M-13755. Today's date is May 8 th, 2007. today's the first day
of the moral character hearing. Parties, state your appearances for the
record.
6
7
8
ms.
9
Ms. Kagan: Morning, Your Honor, Susan Kagan appearing on

behalf of the State Bar and the Committee of Bar Examiners.
Mr. Coughlin: Good morning, Your Honor, Zach Coughlin
appearing on behalf of myself.
Judge McElroy: The court is going to proceed in the following
10
manner. There's gonna be opening statements from both parties.
11
Applicant is then going to present his case the applicant is initially
12
going to furnish enough evidence of good moral character to establish a
13
case. In this case, the applicant is going to have to furnish enough
14
evidence that he has good moral character which would include
15
evidence that he has addressed any alcohol abuse issues, okay? Once
16
the applicant has made his showing of good moral character the State
17
Bar is going to have to present evidence to rebut that good moral
18
character and then the applicant is going to have to rebut the showing
19
of bad moral character with proof of rehabilitation or an explanation
20
for why his behavior may not indicate bad moral character. In terms of
21
scheduling witnesses, how many witnesses are you gonna have, and how
22
are we going to schedule them?
23
Ms. Kagan: Most of my witnesses are scheduled for tomorrow okay
24
and I believe there are at this point seven witnesses scheduled for
25
tomorrow.
26
Judge McElroy: Tomorrow we're only going until four o'clock so.
27
28
2/433
1
2
Ms. Kagan: I don't think it's going to be a problem if anyone is not

able to testify they can testify Thursday.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, how many witnesses do you have?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't have any witnesses other than myself, if the
court wishes to hear from me.
Judge McElroy: Okay, well you're going to present your case first,
so do you want to start with opening statements and you would go first
because it's your burden. So, let's start with opening statements.
ms.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, should I stand up?
Judge McElroy: Sure but whatever it is you're comfortable with.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon, Your Honor, I apologize again for
11
being late. I think I should start off by addressing what would
12
probably appear to you as a paucity or a lack of witnesses and things of
13
that nature. I don't have any excuse for that other than to say that this
14
process has kind of gone about as far as I can go with this process, and so
15
I'm just here to answer any questions you might have. I think you've got
16
access to a thorough description of the issues that the State Bar was
17
concerned with and my attempts to address those issues and simply put
18
I don't think anything I've done is so bad that it should prevent me
19
from getting a license, especially when viewed in combination with the
20
steps I've taken to address the concerns the State Bar has.
21
Judge McElroy: Do you have an opening statement.
22
Ms. Kagan: It'll be just very brief, Your Honor. As set forth in the
23
pretrial statement this case is about candor and cooperation. There are
24
Mr. Coughlin the evidence will show that he has an inability to be
25
candid with State Bar in relation to its investigation and this
26
proceeding. He, first of all, omitted things from his application and he
27
failed to update his application. When he did provide updates to his
28
3/433
application there are many misrepresentation made in those updates
and he has essentially failed to cooperate with the preceding and that's
evidenced by his deposition testimony as well as his dealings with this
court and the State Bar and based on that the State Bar submits that
Mr. Coughlin will be unable to prove that he has a requisite good
character for admission.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what you should do now is present
your evidence of good moral character and because you're representing
ms.
9
10
yourself you'll have to get up on the stand and present your evidence of
good moral character in a narrative form. Okay, so you're gonna have
to be sworn.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Can I bring my notes with me to the stand?
12
Judge McElroy: Sure.
13
(The oath was administered to Mr. Coughlin.)
14
Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon, Your Honor, to present in a
15
narrative form why I think I should be given a license I would start off
16
by pointing to the issues that the State Bar has highlighted. To start,
17
the omissions that the State Bar is pointing to are of the type that past
18
case law in this state in licensing and moral character applications
19
have been viewed as so minor as to not qualify as the type of omission
20
that reflect adversely on candor, particularly when viewed in light of
21
the fact that I reported things of a far more serious nature such as a dry
22
reckless driving charge. I reported the incidents at law school to the
23
State Bar. I reported my arrest in October 2001 to the State Bar and
24
from the State Bar's Pre-Trial Statement some of the omissions in
25
which they're taking issue with are things things like, and I'm quoting
26
here: Mr. Coughlin said he was a patent attorney he's an attorney who
27
is also listed as a patent agent it's unclear whether he's a patent
28
4/433
attorney. Things of this sort which are really overly technical and
and I'm not even sure that's an omission if you look at the record
thoroughly. Throughout this five years of interacting with the State
Bar I've been, if anything, extremely candid. I don't know how many
people you have come into the State Bar informal conferences and
bring up drinking as an issue, you know, who you don't have a DUI, and
who never been convicted of any crime other than a dry reckless
driving charge January 2003 and perhaps some minor speeding tickets
ms.
along the way. Further, the State Bar has been presented with, in my
estimate, somewhere in the range of over six hundred signatures from
10
recovery based meetings. So, if the issue is recovery, you've got someone
11
who came in self-reported and they went out in going to a great deal of
12
meetings and present documentation as well as letters of support from
13
the State Bar Nevada's Director of that bar's Lawyer's Concerned for
14
Lawyers program, and attorney mentor, and several other attorney
15
letters of recommendation testifying to my character specifically.

Judge McElroy: Before we proceed, do you have a list of exhibits,
16
17
did we get a list of exhibits from you?
18
Mr. Coughlin: Other than what the State Bar submitted, no.
19
Judge McElroy: All these attorney mentor letters, where are
20
they?
21
Mr. Coughlin: They're included within the State Bar's.
22
Judge McElroy: Okay.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Pretty much everything I would have submitted as
24
an exhibit has been covered by State Bar's.
25
Judge McElroy: So you don't have any exhibits, okay?
26
Mr. Coughlin: Other than what I would be able to use out of the
27
State Bar's.
28
5/433
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: Okay, I mean what I need is evidence of good

moral character, okay?
Mr. Coughlin: I see, Your Honor. I would point to as evidence of
good moral character included in that is one's attempts at
rehabilitation as I understand the law. In addition to what would be
contained in Exhibit 3 when I did an update to my moral character
application which is followed by approximately 45 pages of signatures
for AA meetings from over from early 2003 to the present day these
ms.
9
were done and just voluntarily on my part, for the most part other,
than a six-month period in which the LAP program had directed me to
10
attend one meeting a days for 180 days in a row, or one recovery
11
activity. But that's an hour a signature and so I think that to me
12
illustrate a great deal of time and effort that's been put into this which
13
I don't know if I think can really be summed up in words, but hopefully
14
this number of signatures and the number of pages that have been
15
submitted can make some impression. Additionally, there's a letter
16
from Coe Swobe. Exhibit 40 contains letters of reference from a number
17
of attorneys. I apologize, that's actually Exhibit 39.
18
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I'm going to object to any
19
reference to letters of recommendation in this matter on the basis that
20
the State Bar never agreed to have character witnesses by declaration
21
or by letter.
22
Judge McElroy: So the objection is hearsay?
23
Ms. Kagan: Ha. Exactly!
24
Judge McElroy: Sustained.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, if it is a trial exhibit, does that mean
26
it's part of the trial and is to be considered by the court or?
27
28
6/433
Judge McElroy: It depends on if they're admitted into evidence. I
don't know what's going to be admitted into evidence. What I would
suggest is that you tell the court in your own words why you think
you're a person of good moral character. What volunteer work you've
done. I mean just give us why you think you're a person of good moral
character and why you should be admitted and you can refer to some of
the exhibits. Some of them may come in, some of them may not, but that
should have been worked out with you in terms of a declaration with
ms.
the State Bar in terms of whether they would accept declarations from
people that you were a person of good moral character and in general
10
they accept declarations but you have to work that out ahead of time
11
because otherwise it's all hearsay.
12
Mr. Coughlin: I would refer to those letters and I know you
13
sustained the objection so I don't know to what extent I can still refer to
14
them but they are included in the State Bar's exhibits. There's a letter
15
from a Reno District Court Judge John Kadlic in there. There's letters
16
from attorneys that I've worked for, the Johnson Hanan firm, the
17
Morishita firm.
18
19
20
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I am going to object to this based on

relevance.
Judge McElroy: The problem is, it is hearsay. I mean the problem
21
is these people there should have been declarations are they should
22
come in here and testify. I mean, I can tell you generally in moral
23
character trials, what you do is you have eight or nine witnesses come
24
in and say that you're a good moral character and that you should be
25
admitted and they give examples of what things that you've done that
26
would indicate that you're good moral character. And you can do it I
27
mean, if you don't have other witnesses, of course you can do it yourself,
28
7/433
as you can start testifying as to why you believe you are a good moral
character.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, well, I think I'm a good moral character
because I've, you know, I graduated from schools, graduated from
college, graduated from law school. I passed three bar exams and I've
never been convicted of a crime other than a dry reckless driving
charge. I self-reported that perhaps alcohol was an issue to the State
Bar, which to me is presumptive evidence of good moral character. I
ms.
9
don't know how many people you get to do that a year, but certainly if
that's not looked upon as exhibiting some degree of candor or
10
cooperation then I think that sets a dangerous precedent for those in
11
the future who might be thinking about self-reporting or taking a look
12
at their drinking. It creates a climate of distrust and fear and secrecy
13
with the State Bar if you got a guy who came in never was arrested for
14
anything other than it dry reckless driving charge who said to the
15
State Bar, you know I think I have a problem with drinking and I'm
16
taking a look at it, who then went out on his own at his own direction
17
collected upwards of six hundred AA signatures from one hour a
18
meetings, submitted a bunch of letters from different AA attorneys in
19
Nevada and attorneys in Nevada who have been active in AA and on
20
the Nevada State Bar's substance abuse chapter for years and years,
21
and letters from district court judges.
22
Ms. Kagan: Objection, hearsay.
23
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule the objection because he hasn't
24
really got into details about what they've said. Do you do any type of
25
volunteer work? I mean, what do you do?
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Well, in AA I do volunteer. I make coffee, I have

held commitments in AA where I get up before the meeting and make
28
8/433
the coffee before the meeting. I have people in my life who have started
going to AA because I've taken them to AA meetings and they've
started getting sober because some way I think helped that to some
extent by taking them to a meeting. In some way I think just being
here is a bit of a service that I'm doing because this isn't a comfortable
situation for me and probably there's not a whole lot for me to gain out
of this, but I believe, I have strong feelings about the way this situation
has gone and the way my particular case has been handled and I think
ms.
it deserves to have a look taken at it to see if perhaps there are some
issues here that we need to be concerned with in terms of the policy
10
that's set forth if this court and the bar is to look at those who self-
11
report and go on to treat them in the way that my case has been treated
12
and what the ramifications of that will be. In addition, I think there's
13
some issues to look at in terms of the LAP program and how it deals
14
with the individuals who present with either some sort of a ADA issue
15
or some sort of condition or health problem that maybe takes them out
16
of the realm of their typical participant, one who maybe is just a
17
garden-variety alcoholic. But, how does the LAP program treat those
18
who present with ADD or who present with back pain or who present
19
with diabetes or something that complicates the matter and is the LAP
20
program being respectful of that person's doctor-patient relationship?
21
Is it trying to commandeer that relationship? Does the LAP program
22
and the State Bar discriminated against individuals who maybe I've
23
had to take certain medications that the LAP program would rather
24
them not be taking.
25
26
Judge McElroy: I mean I think what you should do is address the

issues of the honesty, fairness, trustworthiness. Those are issues that
27
28
9/433
this court is concerned with. Present through your testimony evidence
that you're trustworthy that there's honesty, candor those issues, okay?
Mr. Coughlin: Well, to go back to something like in high school, I
was an all-state basketball player three times and I was a captain of
team, things like that, never missed a practice and developed a good
relationship with a group of people in that way and I think was you
know someone who was doing something to be productive with their
life. From there I went on to college and then law school and basically
ms.
9
was just a student, you know? I think something that's really

illustrative of my candor and trustworthiness is the self reporting to
10
the State Bar that I mentioned earlier in addition to the prompt
11
reporting of my dry reckless arrest and of the movie theater arrest and
12
of the law school paper matter. This isn't a case of someone who got
13
arrested and didn't report to the State Bar. These are situations where
14
I promptly reported to the bar and just this determination to face
15
adversity of you know graduating from law school and passing bar
16
exams and not being licensed, and going from the time I passed you
17
know the Nevada Bar to get actually getting license was well over
18
three and a half years. So just hanging in there trying to stay active in
19
the legal community, which was not very easy I think most people who
20
are trying to work it in the law who don't have a license but passed the
21
bar would say that it can be difficult to find a good position in a firm
22
given the economics of law practices and the state of the economy in
23
those years that I'm speaking of which was roughly 2001-2004. So I
24
think that illustrates a lot of character in that I stayed persistent, I
25
stuck with it. I had to do something to get the Nevada bar to license me
26
because from my experience they don't take that lightly at all and you
27
know it took a lot to convince the powers-that-be in Nevada that I
28
10/433
should get a license. I think that's something that perhaps this bar
could consider and give some weight to especially considering that I
was in Nevada for the better part of my life. I only lived in California
first something around two months and so it's those in Nevada who
have had the opportunity to observe me and make judgments about my
fitness to practice law.
7
8
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Okay, so for the record what you need to do is

establish because it's not on the record that your are a Nevada lawyer,
that you have proven to the State of Nevada that you have good
character by definition. I mean, you have to present evidence because
10
I'm not hearing it now. What you, I mean I can presume your a Nevada
11
lawyer because I have all the papers, but it's not in the record. You've
12
got to do that, okay?
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, well can I state under oath that I am a

Nevada lawyer?
Judge McElroy: Of course, that's what you're here for. I mean
16
what you have to do is prove that you have good moral character and
17
you have to give us proof so you have to set it up so that it's in evidence.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, well I am a Nevada lawyer. I also have
19
passed the patent bar exam, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office's bar
20
exam, and have been licensed with that office.
21
Judge McElroy: Was there are moral character component in
22
getting the license for Nevada? Was there moral character component
23
in getting a license to be a patent attorney? These are the things we
24
need to hear.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Yes there was-
26
Judge McElroy: Okay, so go ahead.
27
28
11/433
Mr. Coughlin: In both cases, there was a thorough process, in both
the Patent Bar's licensing application ,moral character application and
in the Nevada Bar's. I was given the license as a patent agent prior to
become an attorney in 2003, May of 2003, and I was subsequently given
a Nevada practice law March of 2005. From march of 2003, I've been
active in Nevada bars Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers program which
is a program affiliated with the State Bar of Nevada that is somewhat
analogous to the LAP or The Other Bar programs that are in
ms.
9
California. That's including meeting once a week with a group of

attorneys for an hour long meeting. I've had some experience in the law.
10
I worked in a litigation firm and I worked in a medical malpractice
11
firm and I don't know what else I might be able to say to prove that I
12
have character.
13
Judge McElroy: So do we have cross-examination?
14
Ms. Kagan: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
15
Judge McElroy: So, at this point I'm gonna make a ruling that
16
you've made a prima facie case that you have good moral character and
17
so now the issue is going to be the State Bar rebutting that good
18
character. So, I'm gonna make a ruling that you've shown that you have
19
you've made enough of the case that you have good moral character. So
20
now the State Bar can present their evidence to rebut that, so you can
21
step down and you can cross-examine their witnesses.
22
Ms. Kagan: I'm going to call Mr. Coughlin as my first witness.
23
What I'd like to do first, Mr. Coughlin, is go through all the
24
applications and updates that we've submitted to the State Bar.
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Excuse me, do I have to be cross-examined? Is this a

situation similar to a criminal case where one can refuse to testify?
Judge McElroy: No, you can't refuse to take the stand.
28
12/433
Q: I'd like to turn to Exhibit 1, Mr. Coughlin.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry would it be possible to use the restroom?
Judge McElroy: Sure, so why don't we take a five-minute break so
you can.
Court: Back on the record.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, please turn to Exhibit 1. Do you recognize
7
8
ms.
9
10
Exhibit 1?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: How do you recognize it?
A: My original application, moral character applications to the
State Bar of California.
11
Q: This is something that you filed with the State Bar?
12
A: Yes.
13
Q: Can you look at pages 1 through 25 and advise whether or not
14
15
16
every single page was submitted by you to the State Bar?

A: I believe so yes your honor I would request to move Exhibit 1
into evidence?
17
Judge McElroy: Any objection?
18
A: No, Your Honor.
19
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 1 is moved into evidence.
20
Q: Move on to Exhibit 2. Mr. Coughlin, do you recognize Exhibit 2?
21
Just to put on record Exhibit 2 is a three-page exhibit, first page is
22
entitled Amendment to Application, second page is a letter on the
23
letterhead of Zachary Barker Coughlin dated March 19, 2003 and page 3
24
is a letter entitled Application of Zachary B. Coughlin dated February
25
23rd, 2003.
26
27
A: The question is do I recognize Exhibit 2, and that would be

these three pages?
28
13/433
Q: Yes.
A: I recognize the first page the second page I don't see a signature
3
4
5
but it looks familiar and the third page I recognize.

Q: Let's turn to the second page then is this a letter that you
submitted to the State Bar?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Did you write this letter, Mr. Coughlin?
A: I think I did it would help if there's a signature on it though.
ms.
9
Q: Other than the signature, do you know whether or not you

wrote this page?
10
A: I'm not sure my guess, would be that I did though.
11
Q: Move to have Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: No, Your Honor.
14
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 2 is admitted into evidence.
15
Q: Exhibit three Mr. Coughlin. Exhibit 3 is a 38-page exhibit on
16
that is on the letterhead of Zachary Coughlin dated February 15 th, 2007,
17
do you recognize Exhibit 3?
18
A: Yes.
19
20
A: As the update that I mailed to my moral character application.
21
Ms. Kagan: Request to have Exhibit 3 moved into evidence?
22
Judge McElroy: Objection?
23
Mr. Coughlin: No.
24
25
Q: Exhibit 4 is a 22-page exhibit and the first page is entitled
26
State Bar of Nevada Application for Admission 2001 data input sheet,
27
do you recognize Exhibit 4.
28
14/433
A: Yes, I did.
A: It is the application for admission to the State Bar of Nevada.
Q: Is this something that you submitted to the State Bar of
Nevada?
A: Yes.
Ms. Kagan: Request to have Exhibit 4 moved into evidence.
Judge McElroy: Objection.
ms.
9
10

Q: Okay, let's turn to Exhibit 17, please. 17 is a five-page exhibit,
11
the first page is dated January 9th, 2003, attention Kathy Crary and the
12
middle of the page says sincerely Zach Coughlin. Do you recognize
13
exhibit 17?
14
A: Yes, I do.
15
16
A: A letter from Ms. Crary to myself.
17
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: No.
20
21
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 19, a two-page exhibit and the first page is
22
entitled application of Zachary B. Coughlin dated February 23, 2003.
23
Do you recognize Exhibit 19?
24
A: Yes, it do, it's a letter from myself to Ms. Crary.
25
Ms. Kagan: Move to have Exhibit 19 moved into evidence.
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: No.
28
15/433
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 19 admitted into evidence.
Q: I would like you to turn to Exhibit 20, a letter from Ms. Crary
to Zachary Coughlin. Do you recognize Exhibit 20?
A: Yes, I do, its a letter from Ms. Crary to myself.
Q: Did you receive this letter?
A: Yes, I did.
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: No.

Judge McElroy: Exhibit 20 is admitted.
Q: Turn to Exhibit 21, a 15-page exhibit the first page is entitled
11
amendment to application and dated March 19, 2003. Do recognize
12
Exhibit 2?
13
A:Yes.
14
15
A: Its an amendment to the application that I submitted. I don't
16
see a signature on the second page, but I do recognize the police report.
17
Q: Was that the end of your answer?
18
A: Yes.
19
Q: I request to have Exhibit 21 moved into evidence.
20
Judge McElroy: Any objection.
21
A: No, Your Honor.
22
23
Q: Let's move on to Exhibit 25, a two-page exhibit the first page is
24
to Ms. Kathy Crary dated September 15 2003 from Zach Coughlin, the
25
second page is another letter dated September 15 2003 to Ms. Kathy
26
Crary from Zachary Coughlin. Do you this exhibit?
27
28
16/433
1
2
A: I don't know it looks familiar. there's two letters that look like
the same letter. I have pretty much a vague recollection of this.
Q: Is this something that you submitted to the State Bar.
A: I believe so close.
A: No, Your Honor.
ms.
9
10
Q: Exhibit 32 is a four page exhibit, the first page is on the

letterhead of Zach Coughlin, J.D., it's dated May 31 st, 2004. Do you
recognize Exhibit 32?
11
A: Yes, I do.
12
Q: And how do you recognize?
13
A: I believe it's a letter I sent Ms. Crary.
14
15
16
A: No, Your Honor.
17
18
Q: Now turn to Exhibit 39, please turn to page 29, a letter on the
19
letterhead of Zach Coughlin, J.D., to Pam Poley, the second page of that
20
exhibit is the second page of the letter signed Zach Coughlin. Do you
21
recognize page 29 and 30 of exhibit 39?
22
A: Yes it's a letter to Ms. Poley from myself.
23
Q: I request to have pages 29 and 30 from Exhibit 39 moved into
24
evidence.
25
26
A: No, Your Honor.
27
Judge McElroy: Pages 29 and 30 from Exhibit 39 is admitted.
28
17/433
Court Personnel: Just 29 and 30, Your Honor?
Judge McElroy: Yes, so far.
Q: Please turn next to Exhibit 72, Mr. Coughlin. Please turn to
pages 33 through 57 of that exhibit, Page 33 entitled Mental Health is a
document that goes through page 57 and it's signed or it says thank you,
Zach Coughlin, Esq. on the last page. Do you recognize these pages of
this exhibit?
8
ms.
9
10
11
A: Yes, it's a LAP questionnaire

Q: Is this a questionnaire that you provided, filled out and
provided to LAP?
A: Yes. I request to have pages 33 to 57 of Exhibits 72 moved into
evidence.
12
Judge McElroy: Is there any objection?
13
14
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 72, pages 33 to 57 are admitted.
15
Q: Mr. Coughlin on July 8th, 2004, did you take part in an informal
16
conference with the Committee of Bar Examiners, and are you aware
17
that that conference was audio taped?
18
A: Yes, I was, and Yes, I am.
19
Q: Were you provided a copy of the transcript from that
20
conference from the audiotape.
21
A: Yes, I was.
22
Q: I would like you to turn to Exhibit 12, a 10-page exhibit and it's
23
entitled informal conference of July 8, 2004, Zachary Coughlin. Does
24
this exhibit accurately represent what was on the audiotape?
25
A: I believe so.
26
27
28
18/433
Mr. Coughlin: No, your honor.
Ms. Kagan: And I also have the audiotape of the informal
conference if that's necessary that's Exhibit 11.
Judge McElroy: Do you want it admitted?
Ms. Kagan: Yes, to be sure, yes I would.
ms.
9

Q: Turn to Exhibit 5, a 25-page exhibit and the first page it's an
10
email from Zachariah Coughlin to Mtratos@QuirkandTratos.com. Do
11
you recognize Exhibit 5.
12
A: Yes, I do.
13
Q: How do you recognize?
14
A: As an email from myself to Professor Tratos followed by what
15
appears to be a hand written response from Professor Tratos to myself.
16
Q: I would like you to look at the entire exhibit pages 1 through 25
17
and advise whether or not these are emails between yourself and
18
Professor Tratos.
19
A: The initial email seems to be missing. the one where he asked
20
for another copy of my paper. I remember we had a long discussion
21
about that one email and is asking for another copy of the paper.
22
Q: Is that represented by page 8 of the exhibit.
23
A: Yes.
24
Q: So going back to my earlier question, do these emails represent
25
26
27
emails between yourself and Professor Tratos.

A: Well they they appear to be presented in some kind of
chronological order, however, say page 8 should be first.
28
19/433
1
2
3
4
Q: Okay, but other than the chronological order can you answer
the question.
A: Yes, they appear to be emails between Professor Tratos and
myself.
Mr. Coughlin: I object to the extent this stems from the
7
8
ms.
9
investigation done the school.

Judge McElroy: Okay, but what is your legal objection.
Mr. Coughlin: Privacy.
Judge McElroy: Overruled, Exhibit 5 is admitted into evidence.
10
Q: Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin, a one-page exhibit it's dated April 7 th,
11
2006 to Zachary B. Coughlin from Janis R. Thibault. Do you recognize
12
Exhibit 6?
13
A: Yes, I do.
14
15
A: Its a letter from Ms. Thibault.
16
Q: To you?
17
A: Yes.
18
Q: You received this letter?
19
A: I'm not sure of that.
20
Q: Request to have Exhibit 6 moved into evidence.
21
22
A: No, Your Honor.
23
24
Q: Please turn to page 12 of Exhibit 7, Mr. Coughlin. Page 12 of the
25
exhibit is entitled Zach Coughlin, Esq. and appears to be a resume, do
26
you recognize page 12, do you recognize it as your resume.
27
28
20/433
1
2
A: I believe so, yes. And I'm sorry to ask again, but can I use the
restroom again, Your Honor?
Judge McElroy: Sure. Why don't we take a five minute break.
Q: Before we take a break, can I have Exhibit 7, page 12 moved
into evidence?
A: No.
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 7, page 12 is moved into evidence. Let's
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
take a five-minute break because we're gonna go until one o'clock.

Court Personnel: Back on the record.
Q: Sorry if this is a little out of order, but move to Exhibit 8,
please Exhibit 8.
Judge McElroy: And and there's no way we could have had
stipulations?
14
Ms. Kagan: We tried to work on that, however, I mean if he's
15
willing to stipulate now to all the exhibits I have 74 exhibits we'd like
16
to take some time to review and if he has any objection I would be
17
happy to do it that way.
18
Judge McElroy: That might be easier, are you willing to do that,
19
just go over the exhibits and just give me a list of the ones you have
20
objections to or I don't want to put any pressure on you if you don't feel
21
like at this point you can why why don't we just proceed and because I
22
realize it's a lot for you to have to look at so why don't we just proceed.
23
Q: Exhibit 8 is a five-page exhibit it's on the letterhead of Lynn
24
Thingvold and it's from Rob Walton to Lynn Thingvold subject Zach
25
Coughlin. Do you recognize Exhibit 8.
26
A: No.
27
28
21/433
Q: Do you recognize the emails from Rob Walton at Uni-
1
2
shippers.com to and from then Zanvibar2@hotmail.com?

A: So the first email we're not talking about, the one to Ms.
3
4
Thingvold?
Q: No, I'm talking about the other ones.
A: They look familiar.
Q: And how do they look familiar.
A: They deal with a gentleman, Rob, who I know and involves
ms.
subject matter I am familiar with.

Ms. Kagan: I request to have Exhibit 8 moved into evidence.
9
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: No.
12
13
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 9, Mr. Coughlin, a one-page letter dated
14
November 21st, 2006 to you. Do recognize Exhibit 9?
15
A: Yes, I do, it's a letter from you to myself.
16
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: No.
19
20
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 10, Mr. Coughlin, a two-page exhibit and the
21
first page is a letter January 3rd, 2007 to you. Do you recognize Exhibit
22
10.
23
A: Yes I do.
24
25
A: It's as you describe it.
26
Q: Is this a letter you received?
27
A: I believe so.
28
22/433
Q: Exhibit 24 is a one-page exhibit, a letter dated September 4,
2003 to Zachary Barbara Coughlin from Kathy Crary, do you recognize
Exhibit 24.
8
ms.
9
A: Yes, I do it is as you described it.

Q: Did you receive Exhibit.
A: Yes.
10
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: No.
13
14
Q: Exhibit 29 is a two-page exhibit the first page is a letter dated
15
May 10th, 2004 to Kathy Crary from Jerome Fishkin, second page is a
16
report of Robert Hunter PhD. D dated May 21, 2002. Do you recognize
17
Exhibit 29?
18
A: Yes, I do, it is as you described it.
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: No.
22
23
Q: Please turn to exhibit 31, a one-page letter dated May 27 2004 to
24
Jerome Fishkin from Deborah Murphy Lawson. Do you recognize
25
Exhibit 31.
26
A: Yes, I do.
27
28
23/433
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Q: Exhibit 37, Mr. Coughlin is a three-page exhibit the first page
is a letter dated July 13, 2004 to Jerome Fishkin from Deborah Lawson
and third page of the exhibit is a stipulation pursuant to Rule 10
section 4. Do you recognize Exhibit 37.
8
ms.
9
A: Yes, I do.
A: It is as you described.
10
Ms. Kagan: I Request that Exhibit 37 be moved into evidence.
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: No.
13
14
Q: Exhibit 38, a two-page exhibit the first page is dated July 22 nd,
15
2004 to Deborah Murphy Lawson from Jerome Fishkin, the second page
16
of the exhibit is a stipulation pursuant to Rule 10 section 4 signed by
17
Zachary Coughlin on 7/19/04. Do you recognize Exhibit 38.
18
A: Yes, I do.
19
20
A: It is as you described.
21
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: No.
24
25
Q: I'd like to go back to Exhibit 39, I'd like you to review pages 1 to
26
28 of Exhibit 39, Page 1is the letter dated January 12, 2005 to Deborah
27
28
24/433
Murphy Lawson from Jerome Fishkin with enclosures. Do you
recognize Exhibit 39 pages 1 to 28?
A: Yes, I do.
Ms. Kagan: I request to have Exhibit 39, pages 1 to 28 moved into
evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 39 pages 1 to 28 is moved into evidence.
ms.
9
10
11
Okay, so is that all of Exhibit 39?

Ms. Kagan: No, its not, its just pages 1 to 30.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, can I request to have the rest of the
exhibit admitted into evidence?
12
Judge McElroy: Any objection
13
Ms. Kagan: I object on the basis of hearsay.
14
Judge McElroy: Let's see, Exhibit 39, what I'm going to do right
15
now is not make a ruling at all and at the end determine whether it
16
should come in or not so right now we have Exhibit 39 pages 1 to 30
17
coming in. I'm not gonna do on your request as of yet.
18
Q: Exhibit 40 is a four-page exhibit the first page is a letter to
19
Deborah Lawson dated January 27 th, 2005 from Fishkin and the exhibit
20
contains two reports of Oliver Ocskay, PhD. D, dated December 11 th,
21
2004 and August 16th 2004. Do you recognize this exhibit?
22
A: Yes I do, it is as you describe it.
23
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: No.
26
27
28
25/433
Q: Exhibit 41 is a one-page exhibit, it's a letter dated February
10th, 2005 to Jerome Fishkin from Kathy Crary. Do you recognize this
exhibit?
A: Yes I do.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
ms.
9
Q: Please turn to Exhibit 44, a five-page exhibit the first page of

the exhibit is a letter dated April 15, 2005 to Deborah Lawson from
10
Jerome Fishkin and pages three through five of the exhibit is the order
11
admitting applicant to the State Bar Nevada. Do you recognize this
12
exhibit.
13
A: Yes.
14
15
16
Mr. Coughlin: No.
17
18
Q: Exhibit 47, a four-page exhibit and the first page is a letter
19
dated May 12th, 2005 to Debra Murphy Lawson from Jerome Fishkin,
20
and page 3 is the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, Certificate of
21
Zachary B. Coughlin, Page 4 is a letter dated April 6 th, 2005 regarding
22
the admission of Zachary B. Coughlin to the State Bar of Nevada. Do
23
you recognize this exhibit?
24
A: Yes.
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: No.
28
26/433
Q: Exhibit 49 please Mr. Coughlin, which is a one-page exhibit
entitled Authorization for Disclosure and Release of Information
signed by Zachary Coughlin 6/24/05. Do you recognize this exhibit?
A: Yes I do.
Q: How do you recognize?
A: It's as you describe it.

ms.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
9
10
11
Q: Exhibit 50 is a one-page exhibit entitled Lawyer's Assistance
12
Program Notification of Enrollment. Do you recognize Exhibit 50?
13
A: No.
14
Q: Okay, let's move on. Exhibit 53, is a one-page exhibit dated
15
November 27th, 2001 to Mr. Zachary Coughlin from Philip Burns,
16
Student Judicial Affairs Officer for UNLV. Do you recognize Exhibit
17
53?
18
19
A: Yes. It is as you described it.

20
21
Mr. Coughlin: No.
22
23
Q: Exhibit 54, Mr. Coughlin, a four-page exhibit the first page of
24
the exhibit is dated May 26th, 2006 to Deborah Murphy Lawson from
25
Jerome Fishkin. Page 2 is a report of Alan Wong, M.D., page 3 is report
26
of Mujahid Rasul, M.D. and page four is a report of Oliver Ocskay, PhD.
27
D. Do you recognize Exhibit 54?
28
27/433
A: Yes, it is as you describe it.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Q: Turn to Exhibit 55, a two-page exhibit dated June 6 th, 2006 to
Jerome Fishkin from Deborah Lawson. Do you recognize Exhibit 55?
8
ms.
9
A: Yes I do.
10
Mr. Coughlin: No.
11
12
Q: Exhibit 59 is a six-page exhibit first page is a letter dated
13
September 27th, 2001 to Zachary Coughlin from Christine Smith,
14
Associate Dean of Administration and Student Affairs at UNLV. Do
15
16
A: Yes.
17
18
A: The entire exhibit?
19
Q: Yes.
20
A: Its a letter to me from Christine Smith followed by an email
21
from her, followed by an email from me to her.
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: No.
25
26
27
28
28/433
Q: Exhibit 71 is a six-page exhibit, page two starts a report of
Douglas M. Tucker, M.D. Request to have Exhibit 71 moved into
evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: I object because I haven't seen this report.
Judge McElroy: So is the objection hearsay or what?
Mr. Coughlin: I object because it is hearsay.
Judge McElroy: Sustained. At this point will not let it in until
ms.
9
there's a foundation.
Q: Exhibit 13 is the reporters transcript of proceedings from
10
March 1st, 2002 in the case In Re matter of Zachary B. Coughlin
11
Committee of Moral Character and Fitness, State Bar of Nevada. Do
12
13
A: Yes.
14
Q: Was this transcript of the hearing that you participated in
15
with the State Bar Nevada.
16
A: Yeah.
17
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: Hearsay.
20
Judge McElroy: Okay I'm going to sustain it on that I think what
21
you have to do is bring in specific parts that you want in because not all
22
of it can come in but most of it can probably come in under other.
23
Q: Exhibit 15 is 118 page exhibit these were documents that were
24
provided by the State Bar Nevada in relation to Mr. Coughlin's matter
25
before that Committee. I would request to have pages 1 through 106 and
26
113 through 117 admitted into evidence
27
objection.
Judge McElroy: Any
28
29/433
Ms. Kagan: I will limit that to just page 29, just the affidavit.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Judge McElroy: Page 29 is admitted as to Exhibit 15.
Q: Exhibit 60 is a 27-page exhibit and the first page is entitled in
small claims court of Reno Township, County of Washoe, State of
Nevada. Do you recognize Exhibit 60.
ms.
A: No.
Ms. Kagan: I request that the court takes judicial notice of
10
Exhibit 60 it's a certified court record of Washoe County case number
11
RSC 2005-000301.
12
Judge McElroy: Is their an objection?
13
14
Judge McElroy: I'm going to take judicial notice of the fact that
15
there is a small claims court of Reno Township. So it's judicially noticed
16
and that would be Exhibit 60 judicially noticed.
17
Q: Turn to Exhibit 61, Mr. Coughlin. Do you recognize Exhibit 61
18
it is three five page exhibit, first pages entitled application for
19
registration to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark
20
Office. You do recognize this exhibit?
21
A: Yes.
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: No.
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I'm sorry to ask again, but can I use
27
the restroom.
28
30/433
Judge McElroy: We'll take a five minute.
Q: Request to have Exhibit 67 moved into evidence?
Judge McElroy: This is a certified copy. The court will take
judicial notice of Exhibit 67.

Q: Exhibit 68 is a two-page exhibit certified copy of the toxicology
5
6
report in relation to Zachary Coughlin. Do you recognize this exhibit?
A: Yes I do.

ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: The court will take judicial notice of the fact that
11
there is a toxicology report. That is the only thing I am taking judicial
12
notice of, I mean, all the other stuff in the report may be hearsay.
13
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 72 is a 101 page exhibit.
14
Judge McElroy: We already have page 33 through 57 admitted
15
16
17
okay.
Q: Actually, strike that. Mr. Coughlin did you attend evaluation
with Douglas Tucker on our April 27th, 2007.
18
A: Yes I did.
19
Q: And was that based on this Court ordering you to attend that
20
evaluation.
21
A: Yes.
22
Q: As part of that evaluation did Dr. Tucker examine you?
23
A: I'm sorry, are we done admitting?
24
Q: I specifically want to turn to Exhibit 71.
25
A: Yes, Dr. Tucker did examine me.
26
Q: As part of that examination did you take part in a three hour
27
and ten minute interview with Dr. Tucker.
28
31/433
A: I believe it was roughly that length.
Q: As part of that examination did Dr. Tucker advise you that he
would be issuing a report.
A: Yes he did.
Q: Can you review Exhibit 71 and advise whether or not this is the
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
report Dr. Tucker issued regarding your evaluation on April 27 th, 2007.
A: I can't advise of that. This is the first time I've ever since report
I couldn't advise you of that.
Q: Did Dr. Tucker provide a copy of the report to you?
A: Not to my knowledge, not yet at least.
Q: And at this point are you objecting to the admissibility of this
report?
12
A: Yes.
13
Q: Mr. Coughlin, you passed the July 2001 Nevada bar
14
examination?
15
A: Correct.
16
Q: You passed the July 2002 California Bar Examination?
17
A: Yes.
18
Q: On February 2nd, 2001, you filed an application for admission to
19
the State Bar Nevada?
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: And that's represented by Exhibit 4.
22
A: Yes.
23
Q: And then on December 18th, 2002, the Nevada Supreme Court
24
issued an order deferring your admission to the State Bar of Nevada.
25
A: Yes.
26
Q: On March 25th 2005, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an
27
order of admission conditioned on your compliance with certain
28
32/433
conditions for a period of three years including a condition that you
attend counseling with a license PhD. D psychologist?
A: That's correct.
Q: Your conditional admission with the Supreme Court of Nevada
will terminate 3/25/2008?
A: That's correct.
Q: Turn to Exhibit 1 please and this is your original application to
8
ms.
the State Bar of Nevada please turn to page 17 of that exhibit. Page 17
and page 18 are an authorization and release. Did you read this
authorization and release?
10
A: I can't recall.
11
Q: Would this be something that you wouldn't read before signing.
12
A: I don't understand your question.
13
Q: You did sign this document correct?
14
A: I believe so.
15
Q: On September 23rd, 2002.
16
A: That's what it looks like.
17
Q: And on page 17 in the bolded language in the first paragraph it
18
states I've carefully read the questions and the foregoing application
19
and answered them truthfully fully and completely without mental
20
reservation of any kind and fully understand that failure to make full
21
disclosure of any information called for may result in the denial of my
22
application receipt of an adverse moral character determination. I
23
therefore agree to give the Committee through the State Bar's office of
24
admissions any further information which may be required in
25
reference to such investigation.
26
A: I'm sorry you're saying that's all on bold?
27
28
33/433
Q: No I'm sorry the first part was in bold, the rest starting with I
therefore agree is not in bold. That's what the documents says, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, and page 18 of the document, paragraph 3 it states I also
understand that pursuant to Rule 6, Section 7 of the Rules Regulating
Admission to the Practice of Law in California I'm under a continuing
obligation to keep my application currents must update, and this is in
bold, in writing my responses to the application whenever there is an
ms.
9
addition to or changed information previously furnished but two

previously furnished the Committee correct that is what it says and the
10
last paragraph states I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under
11
the laws of the State of California that the answers and statements
12
provided by me in the foregoing application are true and correct?
13
A: That's what it says.
14
Q: Why are there two signatures at the bottom, Mr. Coughlin.
15
A: I don't know.
16
Q: Are both of those your signatures?
17
A: I believe so but I'm not sure.
18
Q: You're not sure whether or not that your signature?
19
A: No.
20
Q: And can you explain that how you're not sure.
21
A: I don't know how anybody could be sure something's their
22
signature.
23
Judge McElroy: You can be reasonably sure.
24
A: Yeah.
25
Q: So you're reasonably sure that is your signature right?
26
A: Yeah. I am not sure why there is two signatures, that has me a
27
little confused but they both do look like my handwriting.
28
34/433
Q: I would like to go to page four of that Exhibit 1 page for under
1
2
employment history I want you to show me where under that section
you listed your law school employment with the law school library
page 4.
A: Yes.
Q: Page four starts employment history but under that section I
want you to show me where that your employment at the law school
library is listed.
A: Page 4, where it says all your employment which is or was law
ms.
9
related that question.?
10
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
11
Mr. Coughlin: And your question is why would working in a
12
library be under a law related?

Ms. Kagan: My question was, I want you to point out where your
13
14
law library related employment was listed. It's not listed is it?
15
A: I don't believe it's called for.
16
Q: Okay do you see under employment history where it says this is
17
approximately four sentences in also list to the best of your recollection
18
all of your employment business occupations and professions which are
19
not related but lasted longer than six months since your 18th birthday.
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: You worked at the law library from October 1999 to May 2000.
22
A: I'm not sure.
23
Q: Is there something that would refresh your recollection about
24
that?
25
A: Paycheck stubs.
26
Q: What about your application to the Nevada bar in Exhibit 4
27
where you stated on page 16 of that exhibit at the top month and year
28
35/433
beginning ending employment from 10/99 to 5/2000, University of
Nevada Las Vegas law library. Would that refresh your recollection?
3
4
5
6
A: That would serve as a general indicator but that wouldn't

necessarily mean that those dates are accurate?
Q: Didn't you confirm those dates at the formal hearing before the
Committee on March 1st, 2002.
A: I don't recall.
Q: What do you think the dates of employment are?
ms.
9
10
11
A: Roughly those dates, however, I believe I didn't work over the

winter break and I think those dates are rough estimates.
Q: Would you agree that October 99 through May 2000 is over six
months?
12
A: Not if there was an extended break in between.
13
Q: In fact in your update to your application which is Exhibit 3.
14
A: I'm just seeing, let's say hypothetically it started on the thirty-
15
first of October and you ended on the 1st of May, and even without a
16
break, I don't know whether or not it would be six months.
17
Q: But, are those dates of 10/.99 through May 2002 accurate?
18
A: I don't know.
19
Q: In fact, in your application update in February 15 2007 at page
20
2 you wrote that I was not employed at the law library for an extended
21
period during the winter break from classes in December 1999 through
22
January 2000?
23
A: Yes, I believe that is true.
24
Q: So, are you saying that those are the dates of your employment?
25
A: No I'm saying when you work there and they close for the
26
winter break and I wasn't working there while they were closed.
27
28
36/433
Q: Okay I want you to go back to the application and show me
where it says that um you're not supposed to list things where there's a
break, winter break or a-
A: Which application?
Q: The application for admission, Exhibit 1, I want you to point
out where it says don't list it if there was a break involved in the
employment.
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
A: Well it says if it lasted more than six months.

Q: So how do you interpret that?
A: Well, you would add up the period which you are employed,
and if it totaled over six months.
Q: So why didn't you put the law school library employment in
your application?
A: My belief that it was not longer than six months and that it
wasn't law related.
15
Q: Didn't you actually testify to the-
16
A: And, also, it wasn't full time employment it was part time, like
17
18
10 to 12 hours a week.
Q: And I want you to list under employment history on the
19
application where it says that there's a difference between full-time
20
and part-time.
21
Mr. Coughlin: And this is in which application?
22
Ms. Kagan: Page 4 of exhibit 1.
23
Mr. Coughlin: And that is the California application?
24
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
25
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry what's your question, again?
26
27
28
37/433
Ms. Kagan: I want you to point out where it says that you should
differentiate between full-time and part-time employment. Doesn't say
that does it?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know what you're asking that.
Judge McElroy: She is just simply asking it and if you can answer,
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
answer, if you can't, you can't.

Mr. Coughlin: Your question is does it say distinguish between
full and part-time employment?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure that it does say that?
Q: Didn't you testify to the Nevada Committee that your
11
employment at the law school pretty much lasted the first year of law
12
school.
13
A: I don't recall that.
14
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 13, page 37, starting at line 9, Ms. Story:
15
how long did you work for the law library? The witness: I'm not certain
16
the exact number of months but it was pretty much the first year of law
17
school, I was working I was studying there until midnight each night
18
the lady who worked there said why don't you just work here and I said
19
well yeah that would be great you get paid so for that so I worked there
20
for the whole first year basically it might not be the entire first year
21
because the first probably month or maybe longer than that two, three
22
months I can't remember, I wasn't working there. You testified to that?
23
A: I believe so.
24
Q: So you actually worked there for longer than just a few months,
25
didn't you?
26
27
28
38/433
A: Well, I don't know. If the school year is like eight months and I
say I hadn't worked there the first three months, then you. What was
your question, again?
Q: Okay, so let me get this straight. The reason why you didn't list
the law library employment on the application to California was
because you didn't believe it was over a period of six months.
7
8
ms.
9
A: I didn't believe it fit within what was called for by the

application.
Q: Did you ever ask anyone about what was called for by the
application?
10
A: I can't recall.
11
Q: Did you have any help with filling out the application
12
A: I can recall.
13
Q: What would have made it in your opinion relevant to put in
14
that application then?
15
A: What would have made what relevant?
16
Q: If the employment was for the actual first-year would you put
17
18
19
in the application?
A: If I felt that it fit within what was called for them by the
application, I would have put in.
20
Q: Well, what do you feel that wasn't called?
21
Mr. Coughlin: I don't understand your question.
22
Q: What did you feel you could leave out of the application in that
23
section?
24
A: Things that weren't called for by it.
25
Q: Can you define what you mean by that Mr. Coughlin.
26
Mr. Coughlin: I object for vagueness and a leading question.
27
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna sustain it in terms of vagueness.
28
39/433
Ms. Kagan: I will rephrase it.
Judge McElroy: Yeah, why don't you rephrase.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, you just testified that you didn't believe putting
the law library employment was called for in the application.
A: Correct.
Q: That's great, now can you explain what you mean by that?
A: Yeah, the question called for listing employment that fit
within a certain description I didn't feel that the law library clerk job
ms.
9
checking books fit within that description called for by the question.
Q: Okay, let's turn to page eight of exhibit 1. Page 8 is entitled
10
credentials and licenses the first paragraph three have you ever
11
applied for or apply for then withdrawn an application or held a
12
license for business trade or profession other than as an attorney-at-law
13
the procurement of which require proof of good moral good character
14
and or examination, e.g., certified public accountant, patent
15
practitioner, or real estate broker you answered no to that section,
16
correct?
17
A: That's correct.
18
Q: And this was an application that you turned into the State Bar
19
or submitted September 28 2002?
20
A: Yes,
21
Q: Yet you took an exam for licensing before the U.S. Patent and
22
23
24
25
26
Trademark Office in a July 2002, correct.

A: I believe so.
Q: You didn't pass that test, did you?
A: I'm not sure and I say I'm not sure because there was a there
was a an appeal that I made that was never resolved because I passed
27
28
40/433
the subsequent tests, so I don't know whether I didn't pass it or not.
That was rendered moot, so I don't know whether I passed it or not.
Q: Okay but you passed the October 16th, 2002, test correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And, you actually submitted an application for registration to
practice before the USPTO on July 9th, 2002, correct?
A: I'm not sure about that.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 61, shall we? Its the application for
ms.
9
registration to practice before the USPTO, and stamped receive July 9 th,
2002. You see Exhibit 61.
10
A: Yes.
11
Q: Okay would it be fair to say that you submitted an application
12
that was filed or received July 9th, 2002?
13
A: I don't know.
14
Q: What don't you know Mr. Coughlin?
15
A: I'm not sure that would fit whether there's a more extensive
16
17
phase of the application, so I don't know.

Q: Wait, I don't understand your statement. My question was you
18
submitted this application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
19
which was received by the office July 9th, 2002, correct?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A: I believe so.
Q: Yet, you didn't put that in your application to the California
State Bar did you?
A: Well I did tell the California State Bar about my involvement
with the patent office, so.
Q: That wasn't the question, the question is on page 8 of exhibit 1
where it asks for credentials and licenses you didn't state or put in any
27
28
41/433
evidence that you were in fact applying for and taking an examination
before the US Patent Office.
A: I'm sorry, what was your question?
Q: You didn't put under section under the sections on the
credentials and licenses any information about the US Patent Office
did you?
A: Object to the form of the question.
Judge McElroy: Overruled.

A: I don't have anything listed there.
ms.
Q: Why did you not list that?
A: I don't know. I don't know whether this qualifies as applying
10
11
for or having applied for, if the application phase has become past
12
tense, ie, applied would qualify rather than are you currently applying
13
for.
14
Q: So, was a question ambiguous to you.
15
A: I don't know.
16
Q: Did you ask anybody to help you with the question.
17
A: I can't recall.
18
Q: You just decided to unilaterally not put the US patent
19
20
21
22
23
information into your application.

A: Well I do believe the US patent application was put into my
application.
Q: But that wasn't actually until May 31 st. 2004 isn't that correct?
Almost six months after you passed the examination?
24
A: I am not sure of that.
25
Q: Let's see, you passed the examination on October 4 th, 2002 that's
26
what you just testified to, correct?
27
28
42/433
A: I believe I took an examination on the day I don't know that
1
2
the results were given that day.
Q: Okay, so you took the examination October 16 th, 2002.
A: I am not sure about that.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 61, page three, first sentence, upon further
review your application passed October 16th, 2002 examination for
registration can now be processed, you see that?

A: And your question?
Q: It says upon further review it's a letter dated March 28 th, 2003
ms.
9
to Zachary Coughlin from Shirley A. Brown, Paralegal Specialist, OED,
10
USPTO and it states upon further review your application passed
11
October 16, 2002 examination for registration can now be processed. So
12
you passed the October 16th, 2002 examination, correct?

A: I believe so.
13
Q: And you were notified that you passed as of March 20, 2003
14
15
correct?
A: No, I don't believe so. I knew I passed the exam prior that this
16
17
is saying that they are now going to license me.

Q: So you knew that you passed the exam long before March 20,
18
19
2003?
20
A: I don't know what long would qualify as.
21
Q: But, before this date?
22
A: I believe so, yes.
23
Q: Yet, you didn't inform the bar anything about the patent
24
examination or your licensing before May 31 st, 2004.
25
A: I don't know that to be true.
26
Q: Well let's look at Exhibit 32. This is your May 31 st, 2004 update
27
to the bar and on page one it states, approximately 3 paragraph down
28
43/433
September 2002-December 2002: during this time I studied for and
passed the USPTO bar exam and I was admitted to practice as a patent
agent on May 2nd, 2003 my registration number is 53,905 also I
performed part-time legal research for intellectual property law firm
Anderson and Morishita of Las Vegas Nevada. That was your first
update to the State Bar regarding your patent exam isn't it?
7
8
ms.
9
10
A: I don't know that. I've had many conversations with Ms. Crary
on the phone and I don't know that that's my first written update.
Q: What I'd like you to do then is go through up you know strike
that so so your testimony is that you don't know whether or not you you
may have updated the bar before May 31st 2004.
11
A: I'm not sure.
12
Q: I read to you earlier that you signed off under penalty.
13
Mr. Coughlin: I would object to this, Your Honor, because I don't
14
15
16
understand where Ms. Kagan is going with this.

Judge McElroy: This goes to the issue of candor and how you filled
out the application and what was left out of the application.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Well if that's what she's hanging her case on
18
something like this I just don't see where this rises to the level of these
19
proceedings.
20
21
Judge McElroy: Well she has to put in her case and she's putting
on her case of bad moral.
22
Mr. Coughlin: And this is what she is leading with?
23
Judge McElroy: Yes, this is what she is leading with, this is the
24
25
questions she is asking.

Mr. Coughlin: Some case.
26
27
28
44/433
Q: Mr. Coughlin in that letter that I just read to you Exhibit 32
it's it does state correct that it's you've mentioned its September 2002
through December 2002 correct?
A: That's what that says right there, is that your question?
Judge McElroy: okay right now um why don't you answer this
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
question and then we'll take a break.

Q: Yet as you testified earlier in fact you studied for and took the
July 2002 bar, correct.
A: I believe I took it yes.
Q: But you didn't include that in your updated did you?
A: I'm not sure further I don't know that that is something
11
required in my update. And when you say update I don't know if you
12
mean just this one particular letter or the sum total of all the updates
13
I've given the bar in writing or on the phone or otherwise or that my
14
attorney provided.
15
Q: Did you include those dates in your update of May 31 st, 2004?
16
A: Which dates.
17
Q: The July 2002 date, the first time you took the patent bar?
18
A: You're asking me did I include that in my report?
19
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
20
A: In my update? I'm not sure.
21
Q: Well look at it right now you let me know whether or not you
22
see July 2002 in there.
23
A: I don't know that it is given in July.
24
Q: Earlier you testified that you took the July 2002 patent bar
25
and did not pass it.
26
A: Today, I did?
27
Ms. Kagan: Yes, you did. Was that true testimony?
28
45/433
A: I did that was because I was referencing the date you said it
was and now I'm recalling that I don't believe that bar is given in July
I believe it's given in October, and maybe April
Q: Did you take the April 2002 exam.
A: I believe so.
Q: so you took the April 2002 exam but you didn't include the,
dates of April 2002 through August 2002 in your update of May 31 st,
2004?
ms.
9
A: Not that I see. But, this update starts in June? This May 31 st,
2004, update? It looks as though the first date listed is beginning in
10
June 2002 and so we're talking April 2002 would be before June 2002.
11
So, it's not as though this is saying this covers from April to-
12
Q: But you put in the language yourself, correct, that during the
13
period of September 2002 through December 2002 you studied for and
14
passed the patent bar?
15
A: Right.
16
Q: You didn't include the April 2002 date did you?
17
A: Well, April doesn't fall between September and December. I
18
19
am not sure I understand your question.

Q: My question was, well actually strike that. Mr. Coughlin as of
20
April 2002, you had taken a patent bar exam?
21
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance.
22
23
A: I believe so.
24
Q: You didn't pass that exam?
25
A: I have gone into that, I don't know that that's true.
26
Q: But you took it again you took the test again?
27
A: That is correct.
28
46/433
Q: But yet in your update to the California State Bar of May 31 st,
2004 you're only reference regarding your study and passage of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office bar exam is September 2002 through
December 2002, correct?
5
6
A: In that letter from May 31st, 2004, that is the only reference I
see to the patent bar exam.
Q: What I want you to do then is up tell me when you updated the
California State Bar regarding the on patent bar exam before this date.
ms.
A: I don't know that I did and I don't know that I didn't and I don't
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
know that I had a duty to.

Q: You don't know that you had a duty to update the State Bar in
regard to taking an exam?
A: No, I'm not sure about that. Maybe in regard to applying for a
license, but in regards to taking the exam, I don't know, yeah.
Q: When you were admitted to the patent bar you were admitted
as an agent your license is as an agent before the US Patent bar?
16
A: When I was admitted in 2003, I was admitted as an agent, yes.
17
Q: And what are you today?
18
A: I am not certain.
19
Q: You've never looked to find out what your admission status is?
20
A: I'm not sure whether or not I have looked. I do not recall. I
21
22
23
24
haven't prosecuted patterns before them, you know?

Q: As of this date, what do you believe you're licensed as before the
US patent bar.
A: I'm not sure it's my understanding that if you're an agent who
25
subsequently is licensed by a jurisdiction, one of the jurisdictions in
26
this country as an attorney that you're qualified to be a patent
27
28
47/433
attorney. Whether or not there's something you need to do further to
get listed that way I'm not sure.
3
4
Q: Have you ever checked your status on the website for the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
A: I am not sure.
Q: Would it surprise you to know that as of yesterday you're listed
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
as an agent before the US patent board.

A: I don't know. Objection, that's hearsay and I don't know that
you know what I am listed as.
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule the objection. The objection is
would it surprise you, you can say.
Mr. Coughlin: Would it surprise me? I'm not sure whether or not
it would.
Judge McElroy: So what's the next question? Do we have any more
questions in this area because-
15
Ms. Kagan: No, Your Honor, we can take a break.
16
Judge McElroy:Okay why don't we take a break until two o'clock
17
or 2:15.
18
Court Personnel: back on the record.
19
Q: Mr. Coughlin were you cited for failure to appear in relation to
20
traffic citation Las Vegas township Justice Court Clark County
21
citation number 1-02053878-a.
22
23
24
25
A: I am not sure, do you have an exhibit I could reference that I

could look at it?
Q: Well, do you recall receiving a notice that you failed to appear
to a court date regarding a traffic violation from December 2 nd, 1999?
26
A: I have only very vague memory.
27
Q: And what is your vague memory?
28
48/433
A: That I might have had some traffic violation.
Q: Where you provided a notice a failure to appear in relation to
that?
A: I don't remember.
Q: What about May 16th, 2001 were you issued a failure to appear
for in relation to traffic citation Las Vegas township Justice Court
Clark County citation numbers 1-02497085A and 1-20497085B?
8
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: These are traffic violations?

Ms. Kagan: Yes.
A; I am not sure.
Q: You don't recall receiving or do you recall receiving a notice of
11
failure to appear from the court regarding that case? Do you ever recall
12
receiving a notice of a failure to appear in court?
13
Mr. Coughlin: You mean from any court ever?
14
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure.
16
Q: Did you know that you had a duty to fill out your application
17
under Exhibit 1, page 12, under the section titled convictions where it
18
states in answering the following questions you should include all such
19
incidents and convictions no matter how minor the incident. Traffic
20
violations which must be reported under this question include failure
21
to appear, driving without a license, driving with a suspended license,
22
and reckless driving as well as all traffic violations that resulted in a
23
misdemeanor or felony conviction. Did you know that you had a duty to
24
report these these incidents to the State Bar?
25
A: No, I wouldn't say I did.
26
Q: You checked No, under conditions on page 12, correct?
27
Mr. Coughlin: Under 12.1?
28
49/433
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: For 12.1, I checked no.
Q: As well as 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4?
A: Yes. True.
Q: Under this section is it your understanding that a failure to
appear would need to be included?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: What about the language it says traffic violations which must
ms.
9
10
be reported under this section include failure to appear. Is that clear?

A: That's the wording that I see there.
Q: So it wouldn't be your understanding that failure to appear
11
would be something that should
12
be included in this?
13
A: I don't know if traffic means moving or non-moving. For
14
instance, if one of those was for not having proof of insurance, I don't
15
know if that-
16
17
Q: So did you have a question about the what the application was
asking you?
18
A: I'm not sure.
19
Q: So what you're talking about is your not sure that the traffic
20
violations are you talking about reading it now you're not sure or at the
21
time that you filled it out.
22
A: Probably both.
23
Q: Did you ever ask anyone for any assistance and filling out your
24
application?
25
A: I can't remember.
26
Q: Were you convicted of speeding in Fallon on a January 9 th, 2003
27
and Fallon Justice Court citation number R115317.
28
50/433
A: I believe so.
Q: Were you convicted of speeding on January 20, 2005 Reno
municipal court citation number 0000982687.
A: I believe so.
Q: However, you never provided an update to the State Bar
6
7
8
ms.
9
regarding those two convictions?

A: I don't know that I understood that speeding ticket need to be
reported to the State Bar.
Q: The question was you never provided and update to your
application to the State Bar regarding those convictions.
10
A: I'm not sure.
11
Q: You're not sure whether or not you provided that?
12
A: I think the State Bar might have asked for DMV printout at
13
some point. I can't recall.
14
Q: Let's turn to page 13 of exhibit 1 and the second section of
15
thirteen states bondedness, discharge of obligation, indebtedness
16
deafness and section 13.5 specifically asked do you owe and any debts
17
including student loans that are past due, include those barred by the
18
statute of limitations and past due credit account balances. Do you see
19
that question you answered no to that section?
20
A: Correct.
21
Q: So as of September 2002, you had no student loans that were
22
outstanding?
23
A: That are past due? Is what I understand it to say.
24
Q: What do you understand past due to mean?
25
A: The common usage. I'm not sure what I understand it to mean,
26
but I believe past due as I've heard it used doesn't mean you have a
27
28
51/433
debt, it means you've had a debt that you have not made the current
payment on as of a certain time.
3
4
5
6
Q: At the time of filing your application in September of 2002 did

you have any student loans outstanding?
A: I believe so. I don't know quite what you mean by outstanding,
though.
Q: Did you have any student loans that you still owed money?
A: Yes, I don't know that that means they were past due.
ms.
9
10
Q: And at that time how much approximately did you owe?

A: I'm not certain.
Q: Well, in your application to the Nevada State Bar Exhibit 4, on
11
page 19 going to page 28 states under a statement for question 38 that's
12
a little more than midway down it says yes I have student loans
13
outstanding US Department of Education and gives the address amount
14
borrowed as of yet $26897 dollars. Then you state on top of page 20 no
15
monthly payment yet as loans deferred no interest yet as loan is
16
subsidized deferment until graduation. Were those statements correct?
17
A: I believe so.
18
Q: Was your student loan actually deferred until graduation?
19
A: I believe so.
20
Q: And was $26897 the amount of your student loan as of filing
21
this application in Nevada?
22
A: I'm not certain, but I would believe so.
23
Q: Have you started paying on your student loans.
24
A: I'm not certain whether I have any payments yet.
25
Q: Is the lone still in deferment.
26
Mr. Coughlin: I would object to this your honor.
27
Judge McElroy: What would be the objection?
28
52/433
Mr. Coughlin: Privacy.
Mr. Coughlin: And I would object based on relevancy.
Judge McElroy: What's the offer of proof in terms of relevancy?
Ms. Kagan: Your honor, Mr. Coughlin checked that he had no
outstanding student loans the time that he filed his application in
September of 2002.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, the language was not outstanding it
8
ms.
9
was past due. This is the language. There's a difference as I

understand it.
Judge McElroy: Do you have any debts including student loans
10
11
that are past due?. So it seems to me that some that are past due are
12
included in student loans but anyway that's just an interpretation
13
other people interpret it differently. Anyway the question is in terms
14
of the Nevada. I mean the problem is the Nevada application says do
15
you have any student loans outstanding. It's clearly better written
16
than the California application.
17
Ms. Kagan: Clearly.
18
Judge McElroy: And that's probably the problem throughout in
19
terms of the application for California it's a lot more vague than the
20
Nevada one, so anyway why don't you just ask the question as it relates
21
to why don't you repeat the question.
22
Ms. Kagan: So as of the time of submitting your application for
23
admission to the State Bar in September of 2002 did you have any, in
24
your opinion, any student loans that were past due?
25
A: Not as I understand past due to mean.
26
Q: As of today's date do you have any student loans that are past
27
due?
28
53/433
A: Not under the definition that I understand past due to be.
Q: Do you have outstanding student loans?
A: I owe money on student loans. I guess that means outstanding
but they're not past due, and I'm sorry are they in deferment right now
yes.
Q: How long are in deferment until?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, on exhibit 1 page 14 under the section chemical
ms.
9
dependency you checked no correct?

A: That's correct. Under the section that says have you been
10
diagnosed or treated for a chemical dependency that would currently
11
interfere with your ability to practice law I checked no.
12
Q: Why did you check no?
13
A: Because I believe that to be the correct answer.
14
Q: At the time that you are filled out this application and
15
submitted it in September of 2002 did you believe that you had a
16
problem with alcohol?
17
A: Objection in the relevance given that this question she's
18
referring to states: that would currently interfere with your ability to
19
practice law and her question is broader than that.
20
21
Judge McElroy: Okay, well, why don't you ask the question again
and maybe go down to 14.5. I think that might be more relevant.
22
Q:Section 14.5 states have you been diagnosed or treated for
23
chemical dependency that would currently interfere with your ability
24
to practice law. And you checked no?
25
A: That's right.
26
Q: As of September 2002, did you believe that you had a problem
27
with alcohol?
28
54/433
1
2
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: Objection for vagueness and relevance and I don't

know how this relates to thatM. I overrule that objection. You can answer it, you can explain
your answer.
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Is it true that you started attending or as of January 1 st, 2002
7
8
ms.
9
you considered yourself to be a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous?

A: I am not sure.
Q: Do you remember making that statement to the Committee of
Bar Examiners at your informal conference on July 8 th, 2004?
10
A: I don't remember for sure that I said that.
11
Q: Okay, let's look at exhibit 12 which is the transcription of the
12
informal conference on page 1, three fourths of the page down your
13
statement: there's a big change from those times and it would be that
14
on January 1st, 2002, I became a sober member of Alcoholics
15
Anonymous. I had a slip in January of the following year culminating
16
in my arrest. Did you make that statement?
17
A: I believe so.
18
Q: Were you telling the truth at the time?
19
A: I'm not sure that's a question that is quantifiable by true or
20
21
false it's very subjective subject matter.

Q: Well I'm just asking whether or not you were telling the truth
22
that at the time of January 1st 2002 you became a sober member of
23
Alcoholics Anonymous.
24
A: I would say the same thing. I don't know if that's a true or false
25
question. I don't know how you can know for certain whether or not you
26
are are not.
27
Q: Were you lying to the Committee?
28
55/433
A: No, I don't believe so.
Q: Then what was the purpose of making that statement?
A; I'm not sure.
Q: Were you attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in
January of 2002?
Q: Why were you attending those meetings.
A: I'm not sure.
ms.
9
Q: Why did you tell the Committee that you were a sober member
of Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002?
10
A: I'm not sure.
11
Q: Was it because you're trying to explain some of the behavior
12
that took place in 2001 while you were in law school?
13
A: I am not sure.
14
Q: In fact, don't you believe that alcohol caused some of behavior
15
that occurred in 2001?
16
A: I am not sure.
17
Q: At the time that you filed your application with the State Bar
18
of California in September 2002, were you still attending Alcoholics
19
Anonymous meetings? Yet, you didn't include that information in your
20
application, did you?
21
A: I don't know why you would ask that.
22
Q: I'm just asking a question. You didn't include that information
23
in your application did you?
24
25
26
27
A: I don't think I included that in my application.

Ms. Kagan: Well, review it please let me know.
28
56/433
1
2
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: (very hard to hear, might say: I don't see that in my
application).
Q: Had you received any treatment for alcohol abuse as of
September 2002?
Mr. Coughlin: I am not sure what you mean by treatment.
Q: Had anyone diagnosed you with alcohol abuse at that time?
A: I don't believe so. Do you believe going to an AA meeting is
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
treatment?
Q: Well in your opinion, is going to an AA meeting treatment?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know. That is what I just asked you. It
might be, I am not sure, but, probably not.
Q: As of today's date, have you had a diagnosis of chemical
dependency.
A: Not that I know of. I don't what is in your report that you just
gave me today, butQ: As of today's date, have you obtained treatment in relation to
alcohol abuse?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Can you define treatment?
18
Q: Have you had any medical treatment in relation to alcohol
19
20
21
abuse.
A: I don't believe so, can you explain what you mean by medical
treatment?
22
Q: Have you gone to a doctor regarding your alcohol abuse?
23
A: No.
24
Q: Do you consider yourself to be an alcoholic, Mr. Coughlin.
25
A: I am not sure.
26
Q: Do you consider yourself to have a problem with alcohol?
27
A: I am not sure.
28
57/433
Q: How would you describe your relationship with alcohol?
A: Well, I don't drink, so- Can you be more specific?
Q: I asked for your description of your relationship with alcohol.
A: Well I don't drink.
Q: Would you consider that alcoholism is in your genetics?
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna sustain the objection as vague.
Q: Have you ever made statements to anyone that alcoholism is in
ms.
9
your genetics?
A: I am not sure.
10
Q: Isn't it true that you actually told the Committee
11
12
Judge McElroy: If you made the statement, it's not irrelevant, so
13
14
I'm going to overrule it.

Q: Turn to Exhibit 1, page 4, the application states moral
15
character information Rule 10, applicant has a continuing duty to
16
update in writing responses to questions under the moral character
17
section of the application whenever there is an addition to or change
18
information previously furnished. Rule 6 section 7 of the rules correct
19
you understand that sentence when filled out this application did you
20
understand that you had a duty to update your application in writing?
21
You understand that you were to update your application whenever
22
there was in addition to or change in information previously furnished
23
and you signed this application under penalty of perjury correct?
24
A: Correct.
25
Q: Did you understand that section of the application.
26
A: Yes.
27
28
58/433
Q: Did you understand you had a duty to update your application
1
2
in writing.
A: Yes.
Q: Did you understand you had a duty to update the application
whenever there was a change in information previously furnished.
A: Yes.
Q: And, you signed this application under penalty of perjury,
correct?
A: I believe so.
ms.
A: Okay Mr. Coughlin under the address section of the application
9
10
starting on page three the last address that you listed was 4487 Los
11
Reyes, Las Vegas, Nevada and that was 02/06/02, correct?
12
(audio recording is unintelligible)
13
Q: You turn to Exhibit 24 was that your current address?
14
(unintelligible)
15
Q: And you didn't provide another update of your addresses until
16
September 15, 2003 correct.
17
A: You got some letters from March 2003, right?
18
Ms. Kagan: If you can point them out.
19
Judge McElroy: So you're saying just excuse me no update of the
20
address until September 15th 2003?
21
Q: Exactly as represented in Exhibit 25 which I believe if you look
22
I'll just start with that Exhibit 25 is that your update of September 15 th,
23
2003 and it states your new address is 631 Humboldt, Reno, Nevada
24
89509?
A: Your questions is, is that is that an update I did? Yes, I believe
25
26
so.
27
28
59/433
Q: And let's turn to Exhibit 24 that's a letter by sent by Kathy
Crary to you dated September 9th, 2003 stating that you have two
addresses on file one in Reno Nevada as used above and one on the
computer system with the State Bar of California on Madera Road,
Sacramento Please notify State Bar admissions at address below and
confirm your correct mailing address, correct? So in response to that
letter you provided an update on September 15 2003 of your new
address?
ms.
9
10
11
A: Correct.
Q: Yet, prior to that date you did not provide a written update of
your address since filing the application of September 2002?
A: I don't know how you would know about Madera Road if that
12
wasn't the case. I don't know why her later would reference Madera
13
Road if she had not been updated as to it.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q: Well isn't that a request for you to provide your current

address?
A: She seems to be asking needed either specify which of the two
addresses on file are current or to provide a current one.
Q: And, on September 15 2003 you provided her your current
address?
20
A: Yes. I believe so.
21
Q: Then after that date of September 15th, 2003 you did not provide
22
23
an update of your address until February 15th, 2007, correct?

A: No that's incorrect, I believe there is a number of
24
correspondences between myself and the State Bar which gave my
25
addresses.
26
27
28
60/433
Q: And during that time period from September 2003 to February
2007 you had four different addresses as reflected in your application
update that is Exhibit 3 page 2 correct?
A: I believe so.
Q: From November 2003 to April 2004, you lived at 4263
greenhorn court Reno Nevada
A: I believe so.
Q: From April 2004 through October 2004 you lived at 1044 West
ms.
9
10
11
first street Reno Nevada?

A: I think so.
Q: From October 2004 through April 2006 you lived at 1255 Jones
street number 132 Reno, Nevada.
12
A: approximately.
13
Q: From May 2006 until the last updated February 2007 you lived
14
at 945 West 12 street Reno Nevada
15
A: Yes.
16
Q: you currently live there?
17
A: Yes.
18
Q: What did you understand your duty to update your
19
20
membership or your address with the State Bar to be?

A: I'm not sure, roughly that I had a duty to update them of my
21
address
Q: Exhibit 1 pages four and five under employment history
22
the last employment that you noted in this application was June 2002
23
at Perry and Spann?
24
25
Q: And you did not provide an update of your employment history
26
27
from filing that application until May 31st 2004 correct?

A: No, I don't believe that's correct.
28
61/433
1
2
Q: You believe you provided an update of your employment

history before that date?
A: Yes.
Q: And and where exactly and when?
A: I believe the job at Schuering Zimmerman was reported on my
letterheads and from letters around that time was indicated. And
you're saying from 2004, whereas there was letters from 2003 to the bar,
right, saying I left this job.
ms.
Ms. Kagan: Okay, we'll get to that job in on in a minute. I
apologize. Let me change my question. You did not provide the State
10
Bar with an update of your employment history from May 31st 2004
11
through February 15th, 2007?
12
13
Q: My question is do you recall providing an update to the State
14
Bar on May 31st 2004?
15
A: Is there an exhibit you can reference?
16
Q: Yes there is that would be Exhibit 32.
17
A: I believe I provided this but your question was-
18
Q: Right ,so after this date May 31st 2004 you did not provide
19
another update regarding your employment history until February 15,
20
2007, is that correct?
21
22
23
24
A: I don't know for sure. I don't believe so. I don't believe that is
correct.
Q: Yet, during that period you worked for the law office of Thomas
J Hall from approximately May 2003 until present correct?
25
A: I don't know that you can say that's correct.
26
Q: That's exactly from your update in your application, exhibit 3
27
28
62/433
A: I don't believe that is correct, because, one, I don't know that I
worked for him and an employment capacity. I believe I was
independently contracting and it was very sporadic employment if it
was employment in fact it was once in awhile I would get a research
project.
Q: So approximately according to page three lengths of time
employed to from I performed legal research and writing for Mr. Hall a
variety of times between may 2003 to the present. Was that a true
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
statement at the time that you made it.

A: Yes I believe so.
Q: Yet, this was the first time you updated the bar or advised the
bar regarding that employment isn't it?
A: Well doesn't it say in this 2004 update, Tom Hall is listed
there?
14
Q: That you were working to present?
15
A: I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying?
16
Q: Did you update your application to include that you were
17
working with Tom Hall to present?
18
A: When?
19
Q: Between May of 2004 until February 2007?
20
A: I don't know that there was a time at which that would have
21
been necessary. I don't know whether or not I did or not but if I hadn't
22
done any work for him for quite a while, then-
23
Q: Okay, you were employed by Hale, Lane, Peak, Dennison and
24
Howard from July 17, 2005 to December 6th, 2005, yet you did not
25
provide an update to the State Bar regarding that employment until
26
February 15th, 2007, correct?
27
28
63/433
A: I don't believe that's correct, I had a good deal of conversations
with LAP about that job and believe I my attorney was aware of that
job and I think it's possible that the State Bar had correspondence
related that job.
Q: Do you think that the fact that your attorney knew about that
job is does that satisfy your duty to update your application in writing
to the State Bar?
8
ms.
9
A: I'm not sure.

Q: What about the fact that LAP may have known about that do
you think that satisfies your duty to update the State Bar?
10
A: I'm not sure.
11
Judge McElroy: We'll take a five minute. We're back on track on
12
13
14
the record back.

Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you ever make the statement that alcoholism
is in your genetics.
15
A: I am not sure.
16
Q: Then turn to Exhibit 12 page 10 of the informal conference did
17
you make the statement: I would just like you to know, to impress on
18
you that I really have changed, you know? I've gone to probably five or
19
six hundred AA meetings, I've listened to hundreds of speaker meetings
20
on a tapes. Alcoholism is in my genetics, you know? It's something that
21
really exacerbates my character defects. Even if you took out the
22
alcohol I would still have character defects, still have the alcoholism as
23
part of it. Did you make that statement?
24
A: I believe so.
25
Q: Was that statement true at the time that you made it.
26
A: I don't know that's a statement capable of being qualified as
27
true or false.
28
64/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q: Were you lying to the Committee at the time you made the
statement?
A: If something is not capable of being true or false I don't know
that it could be a lie.
Q: Did you believe yourself to have genetic alcoholism in your
genetics at the time you made the statement?
A: I'm not sure I believe I made a good faith effort to show the
community that I was concerned with the things they were concerned
about and I was taking steps to address it however I don't think
anybody can be certain about these types of things given their
subjective nature and the degree of introspection that is required.
Q: I asked you whether or not you believe the statements to be
true at the time that you made them.
A: I don't believe that's a subject matter that I think can be in
terms of true or false.
15
Q: Okay, let's turn back to exhibit 1, page six under the title self-
16
employment question 6.1 have you ever in in business for yourself, you
17
checked no, correct?
18
A: That is correct.
19
Q: Sometime after filing the application you actually started your
20
own business called Coughlin memory foam mattress and pillows?
21
A: Yes.
22
Q: When did you start that company.
23
A: I'm not sure it was it was either in 2003 or 2004.
24
Q: Okay, in your exhibit 32, in your May 31 st, 2004 update you list
25
the dates of employment as October 2003-present, I started Nevada
26
business and have been a sole proprietor owning and running a
27
business, DBA Zachary Coughlin memory foam beds and pillows
28
65/433
correct, so as of this update in October 2003 you had started the
company correct.
A: Yes.
Q: Yet May 31st 2004 is the first time you've updated the bar
regarding that correct?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: But in fact, in a your resume which is exhibit seven page 12 you
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
list the dates of employment as March 2003-2005 Coughlin Memory

Foam, correct.
A: Yes.
Q: So which is in fact the date that you started the company Mr.
Coughlin?
A: I think that depends on what you define starting the company,
13
if it means getting a business license the day is which you got a
14
business license that's one thing if it's the day which had the
15
germination of an idea to start a company began taking steps towards
16
doing so that could be another thing.
17
Q: In your resume you stated under Coughlin Memory Foam, I
18
owned and operated the sole proprietorship selling memory foam
19
mattresses and pillow, and all legal matters, designed and maintained
20
a website, handled customer service matters, coordinated shipping and
21
warehousing, and utilized eBay and other internet channels to attract
22
customers, and sold mattresses to customers in over 30 states. Is that an
23
accurate statement of your running that business from March 2003-
24
2005 at that point?
25
26
27
28
66/433
A: I believe it is but I don't believe those activities were
necessarily going on in total from March 2003, it was a process of
building up steam.
Q: Okay let's turn to Exhibit 1, page 11 close to the bottom states
civil actions and administrative proceedings, 11.2 have you ever been a
party to or are you presently a party to any civil action or
administrative proceeding this includes divorce, dissolution, small
claim, workers compensation, etc. You checked no to that correct.
ms.
9
10
A: Yes.
Q: 11.3 have any judgments been filed against you you checked no
to that.
11
A: Correct.
12
Q: Now in February 15th 2007 you provided which is represented
13
in exhibit 3 your update of that date on page five you list three civil
14
actions and proceedings or judgments are filed against you correct?
15
16
17
A: I guess those are judgments dealing with unlawful detainers, if

those are judgments, then, yes.
Q: The first one let's just go through this which is represented by
18
exhibit 62 that is River Arms Apartments vs. Zachary Coughlin
19
Washoe County case number REV2005-001396 correct, that's one of the
20
unlawful detainer actions, and that was for a default in payment of
21
rent at 1255 Jones street number 132 Reno Nevada
22
23
24
25
26
A: From what I understand, but I'm a little unclear on on how I

could have two of those you know,
Q: That wasn't the question the question was with that in relation
to an unlawful detainer at that address?
A: I believe so.
27
28
67/433
Q: And there was a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of
1
2
$660?
A: I believe the 1396 was for $720.
Q: Well if you look at Exhibit 62 that is Rev2005-001396 says total
due $660.
A: Yeah I see where that says $660.
Q: And that that payment is still outstanding.
A: Yes.
ms.
9
Q: Have you made any payments toward that $660.

A: I don't believe so.
10
Q: Yet, your February 15th, 2007 update that's the first time that
11
you provided that information to the State Bar regarding that case is
12
that not true?
13
14
15
16
A: Well, I do believe I related that information in a telephone call

with yourself prior to that day.
Q: Did you provided in writing to anyone at the State Bar prior to
that date?
17
18
Q: In fact, are you aware that the State Bar filed a response in this
19
matter in 2006 is moral character proceeding.
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: Did you receive a copy of that?
22
A: Yes.
23
Q: In that response the State Bar actually list this case as well as
24
the the two others that you've got failed to put in your application and
25
update, correct?
26
A: That is correct.
27
28
68/433
1
2
3
4
5
Q: And you didn't actually provide an update of this until after

the State Bar filed its response correct?
A: Well I had prior to that had referred to them on the phone to
you and told you that I would be needing to provide that in writing.
Q: You know I want to look at something, in this exhibit 3, page 1
you state, please accept this correspondence is an update my moral
character application filed September 28 2002. I have previously
indicated to Ms. Kagan that there were several matters to which I
ms.
needed to update my previously filed moral character application.
9
10
11
12
What did you mean by that statement just that I told you there was
things that I needed update
Q: So you were aware that there were things that needed to be
updated in your application that you had yet to do?
13
A: I was aware there was a possibility, yeah. I needed to go over it
14
with a fine-tooth comb. I didn't even realize the unlawful detainers fit
15
within that. I didn't realize they were judgments. I don't recall ever you
16
know.
17
18
Q: Is that why you didn't update your application until February

15, 2007 regarding those cases?
19
Mr. Coughlin: Regarding unlawful detainers?
20
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
21
Mr. Coughlin: I knew I had been evicted but I didn't know legally
22
what that meant in terms of there had been I guess a judgment for an
23
unlawful detainer and that amounted to something that fit within this
24
application. So for those two matters that was more a case of me not
25
knowing quite what those amounted to.
26
Q: Did you ever ask anybody what those amounted to?
27
A: No, I don't believe so.
28
69/433
Q: As you are referring to both of them, let's go back to Exhibit 63
1
2
that is the case of River Arms Apartments v. Zachary B Coughlin
Washoe County case number REV2006-00909 related to an unlawful
detainer for default and payment of rent at 1255 Jones Street 132 Reno
Nevada in the amount of $720.

A: Yes. I still don't understand how there can be two separate ones
6
7
for this. I don't think you could stay two months for you know without
paying. Its one residence, how can there be two unlawful detainer
ms.
actions, I don't understand that.

Q: As a today's date have you made any payments for the $720.
A: Other than the damage deposit was kept in its entirety which
10
11
was I believe $300 or $400.

Q: But my question is did you ever make payment toward the
12
13
14
$720?
A: Well I believe that damage deposit would be applied towards
15
that so other than that, no, but that would amount to a payment I
16
believe.
17
Q: Do you know that for certain.
18
A: No.
19
Q: Okay, now my question was if you look at page 1, there's a total
20
of $720, have you ever made payment and that is if you look at it due
21
date of rent $595, total late charges applicable $50, due date of 3/1/06,
22
$75 a total of seven hundred twenty dollars, correct?
23
24
25
26
27
A: That's what I don't understand is it's like these are two separate
actions but they're both dated from March 1 st.
Q: Do you see the difference that one actually takes place in 2005
which is exhibit 62 and one takes place in 2006 which is exhibit 63?
A: I well my photocopies not so clear I can't read that.
28
70/433
Q: As of today have you ever made any payments towards-
A: I don't know how why they can go back and so you didn't pay a
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
year ago.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, please, answer the question. The question is as a
today's date have you made any payments towards the $720.
A: I'm not sure. I'm not sure if the damage deposit is applied
towards that or not, other than that no, I have not.
Q: Now there was another court case which is represented in
exhibit 60 and that is shipping services DBA Uni-shippers v. Zachary
Coughlin individually DBA Coughlin Memory Foam from Washoe
10
County case number RSC2005-00301, and that's a small claims case
11
against you for non-payment of shipping services and there was a
12
judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $5,161?
13
A: Well, I think it might have been for $5,000, the amount of over
14
$5,000 I believe is some sort of cost as I understand it small-claims
15
actions are limited to $5,000.
16
17
Q: Have you made any payments towards that $5,161, Mr.

Coughlin?
18
A: I'm not sure.
19
Q: Do you have any evidence with you of payment that you made
20
on that?
21
A: No.
22
Q: Yet, you knew about that case as of March 18 th, 2005, correct?
23
A: I'm not sure, is that the date the case went to trial?
24
Q: No, actually that's the date that you filed the letter with Judge
25
Schroeder in that matter which is exhibit 60 page 22 in March 11, 2005.
26
Dear Judge Schroeder, I'm writing to request an opportunity to defend
27
my case though I was not present on the date specified in the order
28
71/433
RSC2005-000301. So would it be fair to say that as of March 11, 2005 you
were aware that there was a case filed against you in this matter?
A: I think that would be fair to say yes.
Q: Yet, you didn't update your application to include this until
February 15th, 2007. Well does the application say something filed
against you or does it say judgment?
Ms. Kagan: Well, let's read it, Exhibit 1 which we went over
earlier page 11 states civil actions and administrative proceedings have
ms.
you ever been a party to are you presently a party to any civil action or
administrative proceeding you checked no correct.
10
A: Yes.
11
Q: And you didn't update that section until February 15 th, 2007
12
correct.
A: Well as I mentioned before I referred to it on the phone with
13
14
you.
15
Q: Do you have any documentation that effect?
16
17
Q: So, why didn't you update if you knew about it since March
18
2005 why did it take you approximately two years to update your
19
application to include that information.
20
A: I am not sure I think at some point I wasn't I didn't remember
21
exactly what needs to be reported within this application I was more
22
sure things like you know if you got arrested you need to report that
23
but this is something a bit more tenuous in a bit further into the fine
24
print in the application in my opinion. Also, at some point I seem to
25
remember thinking there might have been something in there about
26
this and then I wasn't sure whether I had received the final
27
adjudication in that matter and whether or not that meant I could still
28
72/433
appeal it and therefore not fit within what's called for by the
application. However as I read 11.2 it says have you ever been a party to
so I think that would mean whether or not I had any appeal that was
something that would have been needed to be reported and I don't think
as of the date of this application it says you need to report it with an X
amount of time. I think that was a subsequent thing that was added to
applications where maybe the rule went on to say 30 days you need to
report something by but regardless at some point I should have been
ms.
aware of that and I should have reported it and I while I did refer on
the telephone to you and say that there are some things I need to report
10
that was still pretty late in the game and pretty far out from when it
11
should have been reported.
12
13
Q: In fact you didn't report this until after the State Bar filed its
response setting forth this case correct?
14
A: Right, which was surprising me because you had said you
15
would give me an opportunity to update my application and refer to the
16
things we discussed on the phone and then at some point I guess you
17
decided you had to get something filed so I wasn't maybe either giving
18
quite the opportunity or if I was I didn't take advantage of it quickly
19
enough.
20
21
22
23
24
Q: Do you have any documentation of these telephone

conversations you had with me, Mr. Coughlin.
A: Other than phone records showing that we talked on the phone
several times, I don't believe.
Q: I'd like you to turn to Exhibit 1, back to the section regarding
25
bondedness, discharge of obligation, indebtedness on page 13 and I'd like
26
to discuss something other than the student loans under 13.5. do you
27
owe any debts including students that are past due, you checked no
28
73/433
correct? Actually include those barred by statute of limitations and
past credit account balances. You see that's the part of it you checked
no?
A: That's correct.
Q: In February of 2007 as part of exhibit 3 you provided a list of
debts that are past due correct?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And that's on page starts with page 5 and goes through page
ms.
9
10
eight.
A: yes.
Q: Ok so let's look at the first one of argon agency for 470 dollars
11
past due October 2006. So February 2007 is the first time you have you
12
notified the bar?
13
A: I believe so yes.
14
Q: Why didn't you notified them back in October 2006?
15
A: I'm not sure I should have.
16
Q: Would it be fair to say that let's see the next one AFI $148 past
17
due as of October 2006, correct?
18
A: If that's the sort of thing called for yes.
19
Q: And you didn't provide an update until 2007.
20
A: As far as I remember yes.
21
Q: Collection Service of Nevada Digestive health center $133 past
22
due as of December 2006, correct.
23
A: That is correct.
24
Q: And the first update you provide is February 2007.
25
A: Right, and that is what, a month and a half later or something?
26
Q: River Arms Apartments $1532 passed due as of November 2006,
27
correct?
28
74/433
A: Well, I don't know that I fully agree with that debt as I
discussed earlier and don't understand how there could be two months
for unlawful detainer.
4
5
Q: But you do understand that there are two judgments against

you for that amount correct?
A: Yeah, I guess so.
Q: And then Macy's $55 past you as of October 2005?
A: Yes.
ms.
9
Q: Yet February 2007 is the first time you updated your

application regarding that?
10
A: I believe so.
11
Q: Wells Fargo Bank $836 past due as of November 2005.
12
A: Yes.
13
Q: And February 2007 is the first time you update your
14
application to include that?
15
A: I believe so.
16
Q: Are all these that's still outstanding Mr. Coughlin.
17
A: I don't know what written off means if that means it's no
18
longer outstanding but if it doesn't then yes I believe most if not all of
19
these are still outstanding, however I think the charter communication
20
debts might have been taken care.
21
Q: I'm on this exhibit at page 5 under Section 13.5 past due debts
22
you right I incurred debts in addition to the unlawful detainer actions
23
mentioned in section 11.2. Steps taken to address the debts, I've tried to
24
get my law licenses in California and Nevada so that I can repay these
25
debts and to work my program of recovery towards the same goal. Was
26
that a correct statement at the time that you made that?
27
A: yeah I believe so.
28
75/433
Q: you've been licensed in Nevada since March 2005, correct.
A: That's correct you can practice as an attorney in Nevada.
Q: Yes and after a leaving Hale Lane in December of 2005 have
you had any legal employment in the State of Nevada.
A: I have done a few research projects for Tom Hall, I believe.
Q: Is there anything preventing you from working as a lawyer in
the State of Nevada.

A: Well getting hired is you know that's one thing, its been
8
ms.
difficult to find work and for a time there I had gastritis so that made
it difficult, and then there's this proceeding, which I don't know if you
10
haven't gone through something like this in in a first-person type way I
11
don't know if you can really appreciate the extent to which it kind of
12
involves your life and I think it's illustrative to look at when I got
13
gastritis I was working full-time in litigation setting and heavily
14
involved with dealing with the LAP program working with them and
15
so I think I look back at that and in considering this hearing coming
16
up, while, I've tried to find work, I've also realized that this hearing is
17
something that is take something out of somebody.
18
Q: What litigation firm were you talking about?
19
A: Hale Lane.
20
Q: Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you are let go from Hale
21
Lane and you were advised that it was not a good fit?
Mr. Coughlin: I object to that on the basis that I signed a
22
23
severance agreement with Hale Lane and it seems to have some
24
language in it that indicates that I am either not allowed to or to be
25
subject some for penalty for discussing my employment with Hale
26
Lane.
27
28
76/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: Okay, but the question is just were you let go,
she's not asking for details, so I am going to overrule.
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah as far as I understand that, I was let go as far
as I understand.
Q: Yet, you testified at your deposition that you were let go and
you were told it was not a good fit?
A: Correct.
Q: You never mentioned anything about gastritis at the time that
ms.
9
I asked you at the deposition about that job did you?

A: I'm not sure but I didn't get- I was beginning to suffer from
10
gastritis at that time I know but I didn't get treated by Dr. Hinojosa
11
until following the termination of that employment.
12
13
14
Judge McElroy: Let's move on to your employment with the law

firm ofMr. Coughlin: And I would just point out that perhaps this is a
15
situation where you know you could say well the LAP program is
16
designed to do a lot of good and it probably does do a lot of good but in
17
some instances-
18
19
20
21
22
Ms. Kagan: I'm gonna to object to this on the basis there is no

question posed.
Judge McElroy: Sustained. You can explain it as it relates to a
question posed, okay.
Q: Turn to Exhibit 2, page 3, it's a letter dated February 23, 2003 to
23
Kathy Crary from Zachary Coughlin and turn to page 3 of this letter
24
you write: also I have been let go from my position at Schuering
25
Zimmerman and Scully in light my recent arrest and hope this letter
26
complies with my duty to keep the bar informed as to my employment
27
history. Did you write this?
28
77/433
A: Yes.
Q: Were the statements contained therein true?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure because I don't know exactly what
4
5
Schuering Zimmerman's motivation was for letting go.

Q: But you wrote that in a letter to the bar correct? I've been let
go from my position at Schuering Zimmerman and Scully in light of
my recent arrest and hope this letter complies with my duty to keep the
bar informed of my employment history?
ms.
9
A: I don't know that that means that that's the rationale

Schuering Zimmerman gave me for letting me go.
10
Q: But, that's what you informed the bar, correct?
11
A: No, that depends on how you read that sentence.
12
Q: How do you read it, Mr. Coughlin?
13
A: Also I've been let go from my position at Schuering
14
Zimmerman and Scully in light of my recent arrest and hope this letter
15
complies with my duty to keep the bar informed of my employment
16
history. And that would go back to your earlier statement about me
17
not having informed-
18
Ms. Kagan: Okay, I struck that question.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, how would I read that that? It doesn't say
20
Schuering Zimmerman told me that that was why?
21
Ms. Kagan: Okay, well let's move on to-
22
Mr. Coughlin: In fact, I don't believe that was why they told me.
23
Ms. Kagan: Oh, that wasn't why?
24
Mr. Coughlin: I don't think so.
25
Q: Why were you terminated?
26
27
A: They told me it was because they needed me to have a Nevada

license and the abeyance order that had been issued December 18 th,
28
78/433
2002, which I didn't get it until after moving there and starting work I
think was why they said well we need to let you go because you haven't
a Nevada license.
Q: So, they didn't let you go in light of your least recent arrest?
A: You would have to ask them that. Objection, hearsay.
Q: In your opinion, what was the reason for them letting you go?
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
Is it because you couldn't get your Nevada license?

A: My opinion is that I'm not sure why they let me go.
Q: Exhibit 15Mr. Coughlin: And even if they told me why they let you go, I still
wouldn't be sure why they let me go.
Q: But you didn't put that your letter to the State Bar, I'm not sure
12
why they let me go, you said, you wrote in light of my recent arrest,
13
correct?
14
A: I'm not going to say that that-
15
Q: I'm asking for what you wrote in your letter.
16
A: You're asking me to agree with what your impression is of
17
18
what I wrote meant. That's different than asking me what I wrote.

Q: Mr. Coughlin, I asked you whether or not you informed the bar
19
about the Nevada licensing at that time or whether you wrote in light
20
of my recent arrest.
21
A: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question, you lost me on.
22
Ms. Kagan: Let's move on. Exhibit 15 page 63 is a letter dated
23
February 23rd, 2003 to the State Bar of Nevada. So, this is the same date
24
as your update to the State Bar of California only this is to the State
25
Bar of Nevada and in this letter you write: also I have been let go from
26
my position at Schuering, Zimmerman and Scully I was told that was
27
let go because they need someone who is licensed in Nevada and that
28
79/433
the Supreme Court's deferment order was too far out for them to keep
me employed, correct?
A: I believe so. That's what's written on that page.
Q: Is your letter to the Nevada State Bar Mr. Coughlin.
A: I believe so.
Ms. Kagan: I request that Exhibit 15 just page 63 be moved into
7
8
ms.
9
evidence your honor.

Judge McElroy: Exhibit 15 page 63 is admitted into evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: I object on basis of relevance, Your Honor.r
Judge McElroy: Its overruled.
10
Ms. Kagan: So on the same day that you wrote the State Bar that
11
you were let go from that firm in light of your recent arrest you wrote
12
to the Nevada State Bar stating that you were let go because they
13
needed someone who was licensed in Nevada, correct?
14
A: Those are the words that are in either of those letters.
15
Q: All right, let's move on to exhibit 1 page 13 regarding scholastic
16
discipline, under this section have you been dropped suspended expelled
17
or otherwise discipline by any school for any reason other than
18
academic performance and you check yes. if you have state the reasons
19
fully below providing the name of the school the date and the reasons
20
for discipline in the final disposition and you write I was fined $100 by
21
UNLV for moving a computer monitor and keyboard 10 feet to attach
22
my computer for an hour in December 1st, 2002 University University of
23
Nevada Las Vegas correct?
24
A: True.
25
Q: Actually the conduct took place on October 11th 2001, correct?
26
A: So, yes I did write that and you are saying the incident took
27
place on October 11th, 2001? I don't know I'm not sure.
28
80/433
Q: Ok let's look at on exhibit 58 page five and this is a letter or a
memorandum to Dr. Rebecca Mills from Christine Smith dated October
27 2001 it's cc'd Zachary Coughlin. Do you recognize this letter?
A: Yes.
Q: While we're on this exhibit, do you also recognized page 7 of the
exhibit which is a check for $100 to Board of Regents, UNLV from
Zachary Coughlin.
8
ms.
9
A: Yes I do.
Q: Is that the hundred dollars that you paid for the computer
incident?
10
A: yes it is.
11
Q: Ok I moved to have exhibit 58 pages 5 and 7 into evidence.
12
13
14
Judge McElroy: So, Exhibit 58 pages five and seven are admitted.
15
Q: Okay, so it states in this exhibit page 5 of the exhibit on
16
evening of October 11 2001, Zachary Coughlin disconnected the
17
computer monitor keyboard and mouse which are set up in the
18
microforms room of the UNLV law library see attachment
19
memorandum of Matthew Wright. This machine is not for general
20
student use we have two computer labs with over 30 computer stations
21
as well as carrels with network connections. Mr. Coughlin chose not to
22
use these facilities and decided to dismantle without authorization an
23
entire computer station dedicated to the purpose of reviewing
24
microforms in the microforms room. So, is that a fair statement of what
25
occurred on October 11 2001 regarding the computer?
26
A: I would say it's not a real complete statement, no.
27
Q: Was the computer for general student use?
28
81/433
1
2
A: I think it was for students to use, what you mean by general

I'm not sure.
Q: Wasn't it attached for use to the microforms?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Did you have authorization to disconnect that computer.
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Why did you use that computer Mr. Coughlin.
A: It's kind of a somewhat complicated reason as I remember it.
ms.
9
My home computer wasn't able to get on the internet because the

Internet service providers software that needed to be used I believe was
10
prodigy at that point had become corrupted or in some way was no
11
longer functional and so when I called the tech support they told me
12
that I needed to get another copy of that prodigy program reinstalled so
13
I could start using the internet to get home and I couldn't, the only
14
place I had to go get a copy when I could get on the internet was at
15
school but I couldn't get a copy of that program because it was too large
16
to save to it the floppy disk and we didn't have CD burners back then or
17
these USB drives. We didn't have those available to us back then so
18
what I had to do is I had to take my home computer to school and try
19
downloaded the prodigy program on my computer at school I try to do
20
that in the rooms that they're speaking of these computer labs but for
21
some reason I wasn't able to get it to work there and so after trying that
22
again I tried this other computer that was outside the computer lab and
23
you know for about 10 minutes I need a monitor to use with the
24
computer I brought from home to get on the internet and download this
25
program so I can fix my computer and use it at home and I did that.
26
And that's what happened.
27
28
82/433
Q: Did you have authorization to use that computer for that
1
2
purpose?
A: I don't believe.
Q: Did you ask anyone whether or not you can use it for that
purpose.
A: I don't think so. This was like six o'clock or so I think like on a
6
7
Friday though so.

Q: Let's move on exhibit 2 page 2, now let's go through this again.
8
ms.
Is this your letter to the State Bar of California?

A: I think it is, if it was signed it would be easier to be sure about
9
10
11
12
13
it.
Q: What about the fact that your letterhead is at the top of the
letter.
A: Well I don't know that that you know means it's definitely
14
mine if it's that were the case anybody who put my letterhead atop of a
15
letter could write any letter they wanted and and say it was mine.
16
17
Q: Let's talk about March 19 2003 at that and that date did you
live at 1044 West first street Reno Nevada 89503.
18
A: I think so and I'm the first page of that exhibit it's entitled
19
amendment to application and it states I and you filled in your name as
20
Zach Coughlin understand that my application whether filed as a
21
registrant or as an applicant for admission to practice law in California
22
is a continuing application for this reason I'm amend my application
23
with the following additional facts and information which correctly
24
and fully bring the previously filed application amendments to that
25
application to a current status. This amendment applies to items blank
26
of my application as follows and you write please see enclosed letter. Is
27
the letter you referring to the same date as the title page 3/19/03.
28
83/433
A: I would think it is.
Q: Okay in this letter you write to the State Bar stating I have not
been referred to any treatment, its the fourth paragraph down
approximately two sentences from the bottom, I have not been referred
to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol abuse, nor am I
currently enrolled in treatment. Was that a true statement at the time
you made that?
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A: I believe it was but it depends on what your defining as

treatment.
Q: What about treatment programs?
A: If your saying going to an AA meeting is treatment, then, but I
don't know that I wouldMs. Kagan: So you wouldn't consider AA to be a treatment
program for drug or alcohol abuse?
A: It would depend who was saying treatment and how they were
using it.
16
Q: In fact, Mr. Coughlin as part of your conviction in March 2003,
17
you were sentenced to attend 8 AA meetings by June 10 th, 2003 correct?
18
A: That's correct.
19
Q: That's represented by Exhibit 67 page five Superior Court of
20
California County of Sacramento minute order header preceding case
21
number 03t00937 correct?
22
A: Correct.
23
Q: On March 11 2004 you pled nolo contendere to a violation of
24
section vehicle code section 23103 dry reckless non-alcohol related
25
correct?
26
A: That's correct.
27
28
84/433
1
2
Q: On March 11 2003 you were ordered by a court to attend

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings correct?
A: Yeah, I guess so.
Q: Yet, in your March 19, 2003 update to the California State Bar
you didn't include that information did you?
A: Objection, relevance?
Mr. Coughlin: I didn't include what?
ms.
9
10
11
12
Q: That you were sentenced to attend eight Alcoholics Anonymous

meetings by the court.
A: I don't see that in the letter. Was there something calling for
that in the letter?
Q: That's actually a good question I'd like you to turn to exhibit
13
20, in the letter to Zachary Coughlin from Kathy Crary dating March 5,
14
2003. In the letter it states please provide the following a copy of the
15
police report from the arresting agency regarding your January 2003
16
arrest for DUI. Please describe your relationship with alcohol and/or
17
drugs. This should include when you started drinking or using drugs
18
at what age and where and outline your current drinking habits and or
19
drug usage. This statement should list any referrals or rehabilitative
20
programs in which you have been enrolled for treatment of abuse
21
issues. Keep in mind that the rules regulating admissions to practice
22
the barn cap practice law in California provides an applicant has a
23
continuing duty to update response to questions and all applications
24
whenever there is an addition or change the information previously
25
furnished. Okay, did you receive this letter?
26
A: Yes.
27
28
85/433
1
2
3
4
Q: And is your March 19, 2003 letter to Ms. Crary a response to this
letter?
A: The one that had the police report that says that I had to go to
AA meetings, that one?
Q: No, no, no, I am talking about the March 19, 2003 letter.
Mr. Coughlin: That the police report was included with? Wasn't
7
8
ms.
9
the police report included with that letter?

Ms. Kagan: Yes, it was.
Mr. Coughlin: So wouldn't that obviate the need to tell you that I
was sentenced to these it's included with the letter?
10
Ms. Kagan: Well, exactly let's see what was included in the letter-
11
Mr. Coughlin: To the extent that that that fits within a referral
12
which I'm not sure that is a referral to a treatment program as spelled
13
forth here.
14
Ms. Kagan: Actually, um-
15
Mr. Coughlin: See, I don't know that going to AA meetings are
16
17
18
tantamount to being enrolled in a program.

Q: Did you understand what she was asking me to provide Mr.
Coughlin, Ms. Crary in her letter that's exhibit 20?
19
A: She wanted a copy of the police report.
20
Ms. Kagan: Yes and what else?
21
Mr. Coughlin: She wanted me to describe my relationship with
22
alcohol or drugs okay and to list any referrals or rehabilitative
23
programs in which you have been enrolled for treatment.
24
Q: Did you understand what she was asking for?
25
A: I'm not sure.
26
Q: In response to that letter you submitted letter March 19 2003
27
correct?
28
86/433
A: Yes, in addition to this police report that lists these AA
meetings that it says I need to attend, so to go back to your earlier
question-at
Q: But you didn't put that in your letter did you?
A: If this police report is attached to my letter than as a total yes I
6
7
8
ms.
9
would say in whole it's in my letter.

Q: Mr. Coughlin, my question was is it included, is that language
included in your letter of March 2003 to Ms. Crary?
A: What language?
Q: Regarding the AA attendance?
10
A: In the police report that I sent in?
11
Ms. Kagan: No, Mr. Coughlin, my question is your letter.
12
Mr. Coughlin: But, I view my letter as what's included in the
13
envelope.
14
Q: Is it in this one-page letter, that is exhibit 2, page 2?
15
16
Judge McElroy: Here's what I say you're allowed to explain you
17
answer yes or no and explain it, is it in the letter, the reference to AA
18
meetings?
19
Mr. Coughlin: That the court is ordering me to go to some?
20
Judge McElroy: Yes, is that referenced in the letter?
21
Mr. Coughlin: I don't believe that's referenced in the letter, but
22
Page 2, Exhibit 2 states: I have included my arrest report in this letter,
23
so I'm referencing this arrest report which includes this court
24
sentencing me to that. Whether or not it goes on further in the letter to
25
spell that out I don't see that. A certified copy of the Minute Order is
26
included indicating the final disposition of my charge included in that
27
28
87/433
disposition is this AA meeting language, so I think that is open to
interpretation whether or not have included that in this letter.
Q: Mr. Coughlin isn't it true that you told the Committee at the
informal conference of July 8, 2004 that you were a sober member of
Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002?
A: I think those are words that I used, yes.
Q: That's not in this update of March 19th, 2003 is it.
A: No.
ms.
9
Q: There's no reference to AA in this whole letter is there?

A: Well other than where it's referencing the Minute Order and
10
what's included in that Minute Order, no I don't believe so. But, I would
11
say that goes to highlight what I consider to be a rather rudimentary
12
understanding of alcoholism and AA on your part and that would be
13
that it seems that you feel that the minute someone goes to an AA they
14
become a member of AA and from there on their required to identify
15
themselves as such that there's really no room for looking into it or
16
exploratory type of investigation, its once you've done that your-
17
Q: Mr. Coughlin I am asking about statements you made at the
18
informal conference in July 8th, 2004, on that date you made the
19
statement I'm a silver I've been a sober member of Alcoholics
20
Anonymous since January 1st, 2002, correct?
21
A: I believe so.
22
Q: Yet, you don't include that language in this letter did you? This
23
24
language this letter that is exhibit 2 page 2.

A: You can start going and not really feel you belong there. You
25
can start going and not really be on board with it. You can just be
26
going to see what you think about it, you know, and then, after the fact,
27
say well okay I've been going, I wasn't drinking, so yeah, I guess I didn't
28
88/433
really know at the time you know, but now that I look back on it, yeah
that was the germination of my recovery or that's where things started
to change or I started looking at things differently. But I don't think
anybody in the history of recovery has just one day been like, oh, this is
me, that's it, boom. You know, it a process.
6
7
8
ms.
9
Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you make that statement at the informal

conference?
Mr. Coughlin: Which statement?
Q: That you've been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous
since January 1st, 2002.
10
A: Yeah, I think I did.
11
Q: Okay, and going back to Exhibit 20: Please describe your
12
relationship with alcohol and/or drugs. This should include when you
13
started drinking and using drugs at what age and where and outline
14
your current drinking habits and or drinking usage. This statement
15
should list any referrals or rehabilitative programs in which you have
16
been enrolled for treatment of abuse issues Okay, so that is March
17
2003, correct? And yet nowhere in Exhibit 2 do you mention that you
18
have been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, do you?
19
A: Well, actually if I'm giving you this in the police report that
20
says I have the attend meetings, then I guess that would mean that,
21
yes, I have been telling you I had been attending meetings.
22
23
Q: Where in the police report does it say that you've been a sober
member of Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002?
24
25
26
A: I don't know that it does say that in the police report.
27
28
89/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: Where in the police report does it say that you have attended
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the past?
A: Where it says part of the condition for this dry reckless to go to
these meetings?
Q: I am talking about in the past before you were ordered to go.
A: I don't know why a police report would talk about that. I don't
know why you are asking that question as if there's a duty to say if
you've ever gone to an AA meeting, there's a duty to say you've gone to
ms.
9
an AA meeting? Is that what you're saying because if that's what's

being said here the precedents, then let's really say that so that nobody
10
ever goes to an AA meeting again, let's just get that out of the way,
11
because if they do go to AA meeting, then they need to report it to you
12
right, Susan, and then where do we go with that, you know? Judge
13
McElroy: Okay, what's the next question.
14
Q: Exhibit 2, page 2 second sentence: while I would like to point
15
out that I was not under the influence of any drug when I was pulled
16
over for having my seat belt unfastened, I must admit that I had
17
smoked marijuana in the weeks preceding my arrest. Is that a true
18
statement?
19
A: I believe so.
20
Q: Are you aware that the toxicology report found that you tested
21
positive for THC.
22
A: I believe so.
23
Q: And yet when you were asked that same question regarding-
24
A: Positive for use within what? Within a 45 day window? Are
25
you saying there's any sort of specificity to when it said I used it or you
26
just saying in general?
27
28
90/433
1
2
3
Ms. Kagan: I asked you whether or not you're aware that the
toxicology report tested positive for THC.
Mr. Coughlin: Right. Yeah, I'm aware that the report as I
understand it indicates that the person testing positive has been
exposed to THC within somewhere around 45 days within testing
positive.
7
8
ms.
9
10
Q: Okay what about the statement three paragraphs down, first

sentence. I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties and have
never been more than a social drinker. Was that a true statement at
the time that you made it?
A: I believed it to be true, but it's also the kind statement where I
11
don't think it's a true or false statement, it is a completely subjective
12
statement. It's like telling someone you love them. Do you know
13
true/false that you love this person? Is it kind of shade of grey? Is it
14
something you have just kind of a gut feeling? You know? So if you're
15
asking me, is that true or not, I'm telling you that that seems to
16
highlight your rudimentary understanding of recovery again.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q: So, let's talk about your DUI arrest. You were arrested on
January 23rd, 2003 in Sacramento, California correct?
Mr. Coughlin: You are referring to my conviction for dry reckless
driving?
Ms. Kagan: I am talking about your arrest for DUI on January
23rd, 2003.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, the one that was a dry reckless?
24
Q: You were arrested for DUI, is that not true Mr. Coughlin?
25
A: I think so I think.
26
27
28
91/433
Q: Exhibited 69 is the arrest report. Now, were you under the
influence of any on drugs or alcohol the time you were arrested, Mr.
Coughlin?
A: I don't believe so but I should ask, is ibuprofen a drug?
Q: Were you under the influence of any alcohol or illegal drugs at
6
7
8
ms.
the time that you were arrested on January 23 rd, 2003.

A: No. When you say under the influence of drugs, does that
include a prescription?
Judge McElroy: The question was illegal drugs.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so we're not talking about prescriptions?
9
10
Judge McElroy: No, we're talking about alcohol or illegal drugs.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, then, no.
11
12
13
Q: Were you able to perform any of the field sobriety tests

administered by the police officer at the time of your arrest?
14
A: It is my opinion that I performed them all quite.
15
Q: Well, isn't it, in fact, true that you failed every single sobriety
16
tests?
17
Mr. Coughlin: In fact true? I don't know what you mean by that.
18
Q: Mr. Coughlin, what's your basis for believing that you
19
20
21
performed them all?

Mr. Coughlin: That I was there and I was stone-cold sober and I
saw myself perform them.
22
Q: And in your opinion you passed the field sobriety test?
23
A: Yes.
24
Q: But the officer had the opinion that you failed the field
25
sobriety tests, correct?
26
A: I can't speak for the officer, that would be hearsay.
27
Q: Were you unsteady on your feet at the time of your arrest?
28
92/433
Q: Did you have bloodshot, watery eyes at the time of your arrest?
Q: Did you have a strong odor of marijuana emanating from your
7
8
ms.
9
car or your person or your breath?

Q: And it's in your letter of Exhibit 2 page 2, March 2003 you state:
I must admit that I had smoked marijuana in the weeks preceding my
10
arrest. I often wore the same sweater I was wearing the night I was
11
arrested. I would wear it almost nightly to avoid turning on the heat in
12
my apartment. The officer must have smelled marijuana on that
13
sweater from nights when I previously smoked marijuana. I would
14
smoke marijuana sparingly on nights after work when my chronic mid-
15
thoracic and cervical pain would be unusually bad. This would help me
16
sleep and ease the pain. Since starting a chiropractic and physical
17
therapy regime that also includes yoga, I feel remarkably better.
18
Were those statements true at the time that you made them?
19
A: I believe so.
20
Q: Have you smoked pot since January 2003?
21
A: I don't think so.
22
Q: Have you ever kept pot in your residence since January 2003.
23
A: I don't think so.
24
Q: How you ever kept anything used to smoke pot at your
25
residence since January 2003?
26
A: Objection, relevance.
27
Judge McElroy: What's the relevancy?
28
93/433
1
2
Ms. Kagan: I believe I have evidence of possible pot usage by Mr.

Coughlin after January 2003.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so it's possible impeachment.
Ms. Kagan: (giggling) Possible impeachment, yes.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to overrule the objection.
Mr. Coughlin: This evidence you speak of, has it been propounded?
Ms. Kagan: No.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection.
ms.
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: That is the nature of impeachment, Your Honor.

Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't you ask the question, see what
the answer is, I'm going to overrule the objection at this point.
Q: Have you had any, I believe I used the word paraphernalia, I'm
not sure at your residence, for smoking pot since January 2003?
13
14
Q: Okay, let's go on to the arrest of October 14th, 2001, Exhibit 1
15
page 25 there's a page entitled 11.1 prior applications for admission to
16
practice law, second paragraph in October 2001, I was arrested outside a
17
movie theater I had entered the movie theater without paying, I have
18
no excuse for doing so, I was approached by two usher's at the movie
19
theater and asked to join them in the hallway, whereupon I left the
20
theater. The ushers gave chase yelling profanities at me. I was
21
perplexed as to why they reacted so and ran. The ushers chased me for
22
nearly 1-mile. I was later told by the movie theater usher's that they
23
were chasing me because I vaguely matched the description of someone
24
who had committed a series of infractions at the theater and that they
25
took my running as an indication of guilt. After a photograph of my
26
face was shown to the victims of the series of infractions, the victims
27
indicated that I was definitely not the person who committed the
28
94/433
infractions. I am still not clear as to what these infractions entailed.
In the middle of the chase I ran into an area where several police
officers on bicycles were standing and was told to stop running. I
stopped running as soon as the adrenaline and the fear I felt from being
chased by two large men yelling profanities at me would allow. I was
charged with three misdemeanors: resisting arrest, evading a police
officer, and obstructing a police officer. All charges were dropped
completely with no conditions whatsoever. I was not ordered to pay any
ms.
fines or comply with any conditions. Immediately after the arrest, I
reported the incident to both my law school's administration and the
10
State Bar of Nevada. Did you write that statement?
11
A: I believe so.
12
Q: Was that statement true?
13
Mr. Coughlin: Every aspect of it are you referring to anything in
14
particular?
15
Q: Every aspect of it.
16
A: I believe so.
17
Q: Why did you run away from the ushers?
18
Mr. Coughlin: I would also object, I know that I've already entered
19
this but the application as I read it wouldn't even, and I believe this
20
goes to my candor, wouldn't have even required that I report this
21
because it didn't result in a conviction. So here I am I believe reporting
22
something more beyond what the application calls for me to report, you
23
know, and yet you you're saying I don't have candor. So here I am, I'm
24
coming up to you saying, you know, I'm looking at my drinking, I'm
25
reporting something that, an arrest that all charges were dropped that
26
I don't even believe the application calls for.
27
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, is this an objection?
28
95/433
Judge McElroy: So what's the question?
Ms. Kagan: The question had already been answered. My next
question was why did he run away from the ushers. I asked whether or
not these statements are true statements.
Judge McElroy: He indicated that they were true.
Mr. Coughlin: I also object based on relevance.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection on relevancy. I
don't understand why this is relevant. He was arrested outside a movie
ms.
9
10
11
theater in 2001. Are you saying that he didn't report it? I don't think he
has to report arrests.
Ms. Kagan: Well, what I'm saying is that he did report it and he
was not honest in his reporting.
12
Judge McElroy: Okay, so you may cross-examine him on that.
13
Ms. Kagan: Isn't it true that the police officers actually yelled for
14
15
16
17
you to stop many times before you stopped?

A: I don't believe so, but I was running and this was a highintensity situation, so.
Q: And in the statement you right I stopped running as soon as the
18
adrenaline and fear I felt from being chased by two large men yelling
19
profanities would allow?
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: Isn't it true that you were actually tackled by one of the police
22
officers.
23
A: I believe that's correct.
24
Q: And it took four officers to hold you down, Mr. Coughlin.
25
A: I don't believe that's correct and I don't believe I really needed
26
27
to be tackled?
Q: But, you were tackled, correct?
28
96/433
1
2
3
4
A: Correct and I guess anybody who was ever tackled needed to be

tackled, right?
Q: And when they asked you for your name, you didn't provide a
name to the police officers did you?
A: That I don't remember?
Q: In fact they had to find your wallet to get your ID correct?
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
A: I don't remember.
Q: And you wouldn't answer their questions when they asked you
questions, Mr. Coughlin.
A: I am not sure about that.
Q: Were you under the influence of alcohol the time of your
arrest.
12
A: I'm not sure.
13
Q: Exhibit 1, page 25 same exhibit page it goes on to say: secondly
14
the State Bar of Nevada informed me that another concern regarding
15
my application arose out of an academic dishonesty investigation that
16
was completely resolved in my favor in December of 2001, correct?
17
A: That's correct.
18
Q: Did you make that statement?
19
A: I did make that statement.
20
Q: Is that statement correct?
21
A: Can you tell me where that is again.
22
Ms. Kagan: It's a third paragraph first line.
23
A: I believed that that was correct when I wrote that.
24
Q: Yet the investigation actually ended with a formal warning,
25
26
didn't it.
A: That's something I'm unclear on.
27
28
97/433
Q: Really, let's turn to Exhibit 53, a letter dated November 27 th,
1
2
2001. Mr. Zachary Coughlin from Philip Burns, Student Judicial
Affairs Officer and it states: Dear Mr. Coughlin this letter is in
response to our meeting centering around your involvement in an
incident that occurred violating UNLV Student Code V, P and R,
Section V. student responsibilities P assaulting striking threatening or
causing physical harm to another. Okay, so that's the one I'm referring
to.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Is that P or R or Q?

Ms. Kagan: P.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Why does it say P and R, and then it says P and Q?
11
Q: Mr. Coughlin, under that section, is says number 1: You are to
12
consider this a formal letter of warning if you're found responsible for
13
similar violations of the Student Code your status as a student at
14
UNLV will be reconsidered, correct?
15
A: Once second, I need to review this: it appears that academic
16
dishonesty did not occur... spoke with several students remember seeing
17
you have the paper in class that day. I don't know because from what
18
I, he's not finding me responsible of anything, so I don't understand it
19
and then it was my understanding that they were alleging some sort of
20
academic dishonesty. I wasn't sure that they were saying that the
21
threatening occurred in that context I thought they were referring
22
more to the computer thing but I don't know. I mean? I'm sorry, your
23
question? To me, its like saying we're finding that you didn't do
24
anything and if you do that again, then you're in trouble. It's like:
25
what? I don't get it, you know? You didn't do anything but don't do it
26
again?
27
this a formal letter of warning, Mr. Coughlin?
Q: Do you agree that the sentence says you are to consider
28
98/433
A: Well, see I don't know what that's referring to. If that's
referring to this moving the computer thing or? In which case that's in
my application right when I told you about the computer thing in my
application, so. Then the confusion is further compounded by the fact
that he quotes section 5 up here with the P and Q but above that he says
P&R and then-
Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you receive this letter.
A: I believe I did.
ms.
9
Q: And at the bottom of the letter it statesMr. Coughlin: And then it says: though I'm recommending this
10
case be resolved on an informal basis. So how can it be an informal
11
formal warning? You know? It's all very confusing.
12
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, let me finish my question please.
13
Judge McElroy: Why don't we just proceed by question and
14
answer.
15
Q: Though I am recommending this case be resolved on an
16
informal basis you have 10 working days after receipt of this informal
17
resolution letter to request in writing that your case be submitted to a
18
formal hearing. Did you ever request in writing that your case be
19
submitted to a formal hearing Mr. Coughlin?
20
21
Q: Did you ever question what was in this letter?
22
A: I can't remember. It's possible I might have spoken with the Mr.
23
24
Burns about it but that's quite a while ago.

Q: Okay, going back to Exhibit 2, Page 2 down about five sentences
25
it starts with: during the course of the academic investigation and
26
subsequent Nevada bar inquiry several students signed affidavits
27
28
99/433
indicating the they had, in fact, seen me turn in this paper? Was that a
true statement when you made it?

A: I believe so as if you'll notice in Mr. Burns letter of exhibit 53
3
4
and it says: I've spoken with classmates from the class in question.
That is classmates: And they do remember seeing you have the paper
in class that day.
Ms. Kagan: That wasn't the question Mr. Coughlin.
A: I'm sorry what was the question?

Q: The question was was the statement that several students
ms.
9
10
signed affidavits indicating that they had in fact seen me turn the
paper in. Was that true?
11
A: I'm not sure. I know of at least one student-
12
Q: Is that Amy Jones?
13
A: Yeah.
14
Q: In fact that's the only affidavit you ever submitted to the
15
Nevada State Bar, correct?

A: I'm not sure that would be something my attorney who is
16
17
handling that matter would know.

Q: So you don't know how many affidavits were actually turned
18
19
20
in?
A: I remember arranging for several students to have affidavits
21
signed, but I think there was something where a guy named Mike
22
Destefano, was going to sign one but I think there was something where
23
my attorney only felt it was necessary to get one signed.
24
Q: So only one student signed an affidavit, correct.
25
A: I'm not sure but I think that's possible.
26
Q: So the statement that several students signed affidavits, that's
27
not in fact correct is it?
28
100/433
1
2
A: I'm not sure. I know Mr. Burns here references talking to

several students.
Q: He doesn't reference an affidavit though, does he Mr. Coughlin?
A: He doesn't say whether or not affidavits were involved, and
given the tone of his letter which mentions informality several times, I
think that goes to your earlier question about being formally
disciplined which if this is the informal basis, an informal resolution I
don't know how that really fits in with your contention which I as I
ms.
9
understand it to mean that I somehow didn't alert you to it being some

sort of formal censure, where this is clearly categorizing it is
10
informally telling you well we didn't find you guilty of the academic
11
wrongdoing, you know. I guess you can twist it around however you
12
want. And you have shown yourself to be extremely willing to twist
13
things around, so.
14
15
Q: Mr. Coughlin, you didn't provide exhibit 53 to the State Bar of

California did you?
16
A: I am not sure. I might have, or my attorney might have.
17
Q: In fact, you didn't provide any evidence of the emails between
18
you and Mr. professor Tratos that is found in exhibit 5 to the State Bar
19
did you?
20
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance?
21
22
Q: You didn't provide any letters regarding the UNLV
23
investigation into either the computer or the academic dishonesty
24
investigation correct?
25
Mr. Coughlin: I didn't provide any letters?
26
Q: You didn't provide any letters or documents regarding that
27
investigation into the computer to the State Bar of California, did you?
28
101/433
A: Well in my application I referenced it right?
Q: But you didn't provide any letters regarding that did you?
Mr. Coughlin: And in Exhibit 1, page 13 under scholastic
discipline I stated I was fined a hundred dollars by UNLV for moving a
computer monitor and keyboard ten feet.
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
Ms. Kagan: Can we take a five-minute break, Your Honor? I still

have a lot.
Judge McElroy: Back on the record and we will stay until 5.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, what was the basis for the academic dishonesty
investigation.
11
A: I don't think I'm capable of answering that.
12
Q: Why not?
13
A: That's their place to say what it's for. I would be guessing. I was
14
never given a very thorough outline of what they thought happened or
15
what they took issue with.
16
Q: What happened in that case?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, vagueness.
18
19
Q: Did you take a cyber law class taught by professor Mark Tratos
20
in the summer of 2001?
21
A: Yes.
22
Q: And as part of that class was there a paper that was due that
23
24
25
was worth forty percent of your grade?

A: I am not sure, there was conflicting reports over how much it
was worth.
26
Q: Was there a paper due in that class?
27
A: Yes.
28
102/433
Q: And in fact, it was due July 2001.
A: Yes.
Q: And the instructor professor Tratos gave the instruction that
he wanted the paper to be turned in hard copy as well as a with a disc
correct?
A: I'm not sure about that I've heard conflicting reports on that
6
7
8
ms.
9
very.
Q: You heard conflicting reports whether or not Mr. professor
Tratos wanted a disk?
A: Yes.
10
Q: What was your understanding? That he wanted a disk?
11
A: I remember in class that day that prior to the start of class
12
people were unsure of whether he wanted a disk or not. The very fact
13
that there was any uncertainty over whether he wanted a disk or not I
14
think would serve to alert you that it's possible and that you'd probably
15
be better off submitting the disk but it seemed like a good deal of the
16
class wasn't sure whether he wanted a disk or not or and if so why he
17
wanted a disk.
18
Q: Did you understand that he wanted a disk, Mr. Coughlin.
19
A: No, I didn't and the first I heard of it was before, actually I
20
seem to remember him indicating that he wanted a digital copy.
21
Whether that means a disk or not is up to debate but I remember him
22
saying that he wanted to post the papers on the class's website in which
23
case he would need a digital copy I assume.
24
25
Q: You didn't turn in a digital copy of your paper did you Mr.
Coughlin.
26
A: No.
27
Q: You didn't turn in a disc of your paper did you?
28
103/433
A: No, I wrote atop my hard copy that I wasn't turning and disk
because I would prefer not to have my work posted on the class's
website.
Q: You didn't put your name on your paper either did you?
A: I put my social security number on my paper because that had
been to practice in every course, it had been blind grading in every
other course I took in law school and this particular course was taught
by and adjunct who had an employee in the class and I somewhat
ms.
naively thought well we'll still be having blind grading particularly
where there is an employee in the class and I took care to put my social
10
security number atop of paper and a note saying I wasn't turning in the
11
the disk copy because I didn't wish to be put on the classes website.
12
13
14
Q: Before you did that though do you get a permission from your
professor to do so?
A: I don't believe so. I wrote it on top of the paper and turned it in
15
on the podium that he taught at, but in terms of did I get explicit
16
permission not to turn in-
17
Q: A disk or digital format?
18
A: Well, I don't know that I understood that that was a directive
19
20
21
22
in the first place you know.

Q: You stated that you wrote on your paper you're not turning in a
disk, correct?
A: Just in case that was a directive like I said there was some real
23
confusion among my peers in classes as to whether or not he in fact did
24
say yeah I want a disk or whether he said I wanted to put it on the class
25
website, or whether he wanted to put it on his LAPtop because he was
26
going to Hawaii and he wanted to grade them on the computer on the
27
plane.
28
104/433
1
2
3
Q: And the question was did you ask beforehand whether or not
you could be excused from providing a disk?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, it's a leading question that it is
supposing that by saying excusing its supposing that that was a
requirement which we haven't established that.
M. So the objection is a lack of foundation, its not leading, is it?
Mr. Coughlin: okay yeah I guess.
Judge McElroy: So what's the question?
ms.
9
10
11
Q: The question was did he before submitting his paper saying he's
not going to provide an online format or a disc did he get permission?
Judge McElroy: And your answer I'm going to ask you answer
that question.
12
A: I didn't know whether or not you need permission to do that.
13
Q: The question was did you get permission?
14
Judge McElroy: You can say yes or no and explain.
15
A: Okay I didn't get permission and I wasn't aware that one
16
17
18
needed to get permission .

Q: At some point did you find out that Professor Tratos didn't have
a copy of your final paper?
19
A: No, I never found that out.
20
Q: Yet he did email you, turn to exhibit 5 page 8, he did email you:
21
Zach, please send me another copy of your paper many thanks Mark G.
22
Tratos correct?
23
A: Yeah and I think that's interesting to say another because
24
that implies he got one in the first place which I just don't understand
25
you know? And in fact, this happened with another student because it
26
was another student Jessica Wolfe in this course who he had said
27
something about he doesn't have her paper or he needs another copy of
28
105/433
her paper or something. But I always found it curious that he would
write I need another copy of your paper.
Q: Did you provide another copy of your paper Mr. Coughlin?
A: I provided a rough draft of my paper.
Q: Did you ever provide a final draft of the same paper that you
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
turned in in July 2001?

A: Subsequent to turning in? I don't think I had a copy of it, so no.
I turned it in when it was due.
Q: Why didn't you turn in the final copy? Why did you give him a
copy of the final draft that you turned in in July 2001?
A: I couldn't find it. I had a computer die, my LAPtop died in the
11
meantime and I had also move residences and I just simply wasn't able
12
to find a copy of the final draft I turned in.
13
Q: At some point did you come to find out that Professor Tratos
14
couldn't issue you a grade because he didn't he couldn't review your
15
final draft.
16
17
18
19
A: Did I find out he couldn't give me a final grade because he

didn't review?
Q: That he wasn't gonna issue a final grade because he didn't have
your final draft?
20
A: Well he did issue me a final grade, though, I passed that course.
21
Q: But you didn't pass until much later. I am talking about as of
22
September 2001 did you find out that Professor Tratos could not give
23
you a grade in the class because he did not have your final paper?
24
25
26
A: As of September? No, because I said I have a rough draft of this

do you want it? And he said yeah, turn it in.
Q: As of September?
27
28
106/433
A: I believe so, yeah, because he wrote me like on, the paper was
due July 15 or so and then he finally wrote me this we need another
copy of your paper like on September 7th and then I wrote him back
saying all I have is this rough draft you want me to turn in and he
writes me back saying yes turn it in and this is right around September
11th, 2001 so just to give you some context, but anyway so I turned that
in it's like I don't hear anything from him for awhile and the next
thing I hear which I believe was in October was we're starting this
ms.
9
academic fraud investigation. No we're not gonna ask any of these

students who will say that they saw you turn it in we're not going to
10
look at that we're just going to start this full-scale academic fraud
11
investigation which by the way you need to report to any State Bar you
12
subsequently applied to and that was the next thing I heard from Mr.
13
Tratos after he'd told me yeah turn in that draft.
14
15
Q: Does exhibit five contain all the emails between yourself and
professor Tratos regarding the paper?
16
A: I don't know.
17
Q: Well please review it.
18
A: Well even if I reviewed I wouldn't know because this is
19
20
something like what is this like six years ago now?

Q: Well let's talk about yeah well on September 7th, 2001 you
21
wrote professor Tratos an email correct, that's exhibit five-page one is
22
that your email to Professor Tratos five page one yeah and in that
23
email you write that you can't find a copy of the paper because your
24
motherboard fried correct?
25
A: Yeah and because I moved residences.
26
Q: And that you only turned in a hard copy with your social
27
security number on it?
28
107/433
A: With a note requesting that the paper not be used for an online
posting and a reason being that I was taking the bar exam in a week
and that my paper had been really up to the quality I would want it to
be to be posted online.
Q: And then you ask let me know what I need to do?
Q: Yeah absolutely, you know, I was willing to do whatever to
7
8
ms.
9
10
sort this situation out.

Ms. Kagan: That is on Page 1, Exhibit 5. And Exhibit 5, page 2 is
the email from Professor Tratos to you dated September 7, 2001?
A: That is an email from Mark to me.
Q: And it's it states thank you for your response to the email and
11
for the kind words we have no papers that were turned in without a
12
student name on them at least of which we are aware. Perhaps you can
13
help us out by providing us with some more clues what was the topic?
14
What was the paper's title? what was the total number of pages? where
15
did you do the paper? do you have an e-copy? is on your LAPtop?
16
unfortunately I have no choice but to assign incomplete until we can
17
track it down. Mark Tratos. that's what it states
18
A: It appears that you just read those words correctly, yes.
19
Q: Did you read this email?
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: And what was your understanding of what Professor Tratos
22
23
was telling you in this email?

A: I was so confused because originally he goes we need another
24
copy of your paper and then now it's like well we didn't ever get that
25
paper that we referred to as another copy of which we need so I don't
26
understand-
27
28
108/433
1
2
Q: So, at some point would be fair to say that you understood he

didn't have a copy of your paper to grade?
A: No, I would say that has never been my understanding.
Q: So you think that as of September 7, 2001, he had your paper?
A: Well, you know, I am not omniscient. I know I turned the paper
in. Whether someone came in, you know, a fairy came in and flew away
with that I don't know but I know I turned the paper in.
8
ms.
9
10
Q: And then you wrote back to Professor Tratos its page 3 exhibit
five September 7, 2001. Is that your email to Professor Tratos?
A: Yeah.
Q: And in it you describe the name of the paper and then you
11
request whether or not the paper is worth fifteen percent or you can
12
take the class pass fail instead, correct?
13
A: Yeah and then because of yeah whatever.
14
Q: professor Tratos writes back page 4, Zach thank you for the
15
quick reply sorry you were misinformed, the paper represents forty
16
percent of the grade we received everyone else's papers please try to
17
find it on your LAPtop.
18
A: Which is interesting because he asked for Jessica Wolfs paper
19
again as well so that would imply to me that he had not received
20
everyone's paper. But, then he said he wanted another copy of it so I'm
21
confused you know.
22
23
24
Q: So, would you agree that the paper is worth forty percent of
your grade.
A: I don't know, you know, I'm sure it's worth whatever he wanted
25
it to be worth, no matter what he said no matter how confused you
26
know the rest of the class was about whether it was worth fifteen or 40
27
28
109/433
percent. And there was two people teaching this class to you know they
were kind of rotating two adjuncts were rotating.

Q: And then on page 5 of exhibit 5 is that an email from you to
3
4
professor Tratos of September 10, 2001.
A: Yeah.
Q: And at this point you were unable to find a copy of the final
paper that you submitted correct?

A: This is a long time ago but yeah I think that's the case.
Q: then you write second paragraph further no digital copy was
ms.
9
to be turned in by me as I had already made clear my wishes that my
10
paper not be added to the firm classes website I could think of no other
11
reason for a professor to request a digital copy of a paper right? you
12
wrote that?
13
A: yeah.
14
Q: So did you believe that a digital copy was not necessary to turn
15
16
in.
A: Like I mentioned earlier there was confusion amongst my peers
17
in the class as to whether or not additional copy was was even being
18
required or requested or whether anybody's heard of that to begin with.
19
My belief was I'm not sure.
20
21
22
23
Q: In your opinion whose fault was it that professor Tratos didn't

have your final paper?
A: Well I know I turned the paper and you know beyond that it's
not really my place to say whose fault it is you know.
24
Q: Well, certainly you have an opinion about it?
25
A: My opinion is that I don't know whose fault it is. I don't know
26
that you always have to find fault and everything make everything a
27
zero-sum game like some people like to do.
28
110/433
Q: when you wrote the sentence of course I suppose it would be
prudent for all students to keep copies of all assignments that are to be
turned in however I would imagine that I would have been able to
present such a copy that I've been asked to sometime sooner than a full
four days after grades were to be posted. so what was the purpose of that
statement?
Q: So, was it your opinion that it was Professor Tratos' fault for
ms.
9
10
11
not asking for the paper sooner from you?

A: I don't know that you have to read fault into that statement,
you know?
Judge McElroy: Okay, we are going to recess for the day.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
111/433
Transcript of 5/9/07:
Judge McElroy: Today is May 9th, 2007 and we're in the matter of
Zachary Coughlin case number 06-M-13755 we're resuming with what
Ms. Kagan: your honor well I would request that we can take some
witnesses out of order. I have witnesses lined up since 930 this morning
when we were supposed to start trial and a few of them are flying in
from Las Vegas.
8
ms.
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't we take those witnesses first, so

we're going to take things a little out of order.
Ms. Kagan: And, also Your Honor I understand that we're
stopping today at 4pm.
Judge McElroy: yes is it possible to either shorten the lunch or
12
maybe work you lunch today since we have such a short amount of
13
time and I have many witnesses?
14
Judge McElroy: we can work to 130.
15
Ms. Kagan: ok ok and then
16
Mr. Coughlin: Maybe if you just go with the stuff you have that is
17
important and some substance to it not every little thing that you
18
found.
19
20
Judge McElroy: ok so anyway we'll go to 130 and then we'll take

an hour break.
21
Ms. Kagan: Or, maybe half an hour?
22
Judge McElroy: ok
23
Ms. Kagan: thank you your honor okay and also one more point of
24
business. I spoke yesterday about Dr. Tucker. I thought he would be
25
able to testify tomorrow however he's advised that he is going to be in
26
the state of Washington tomorrow but would be available to testify by
27
phone if that's possible or if that's not possible your honor if we could
28
112/433
have maybe an hour scheduled at another time for him to testify about
his report.
3
4
Judge McElroy: I think I mean I can do it by phone it will depend

on whether Mr. Coughlin will agree to it.
Mr. Coughlin: Do I have to decide that right now, Your Honor?
Judge McElroy: No, you don't have to decide right now, you can
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
decide by the end of the day if you would would agree to it.
Mr. Coughlin: For instance, I couldn't have done my deposition by
phone, right?
Judge McElroy: I don't know, I mean it depends on whether
parties stipulate.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, Ms. Kagan would not stipulate, so I drove
12
down here instead of having to make her drive to Reno for the
13
deposition.
14
Judge McElroy: okay well this is a little different because it's the
15
issues how much cross-examination do you want to do. You had an
16
interview with him for three hours. Have you looked at his report?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Yes.
18
Judge McElroy: ok do you have questions you want to ask?
19
Mr. Coughlin: Yes.
20
Judge McElroy: ok and the questions is do you want to do it over
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
the phone or do you want to see him here? You can think on it.
Mr. Coughlin: Because I'm leaning towards not to go against
anybody's recommendation. Certainly if you think it's better...
Judge McElroy: I am leaving it up to you and it also depends on
when you can come back again. So it's up to you.
Mr. Coughlin: You'd like to do today, though, Susan? We were
talking about Dr. Tucker.
28
113/433
1
2
3
Ms. Kagan: He's available to testify by phone tomorrow morning, I

believe. It would be tomorrow morning.
Mr. Coughlin: What we're talking about whether or not we would
have him come back in person rather than just do it the way you want
to do it now. We've kind of been doing everything your way.
Ms. Kagan: I see. Your Honor, if Mr. Coughlin does not agree to
accept testimony by phone, that's fine. I would request that we have an
extra hour set aside to resume this trial at a later date.
ms.
Judge McElroy: What Mr. Coughlin has to understand is that
you'd have to come back for that, and I'll leave it up to him, but you
10
11
12
need to let us know by of late this afternoon.

Ms. Kagan: Your Honor ,the State Bar calls on Officer Jeff George
to the stand.
13
Judge McElroy: Well this is a confidential proceeding. The
14
person sitting back there is someone from the State Bar, so I just want
15
you to know that, okay?
16
Mr. Coughlin: That person?
17
Judge McElroy: Yes.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Can we discuss why they're back there?
19
Judge McElroy: Because he's from the State Bar. I presume that
20
he's watching the proceedings.
21
Mr. Coughlin: But he's not affiliated with the State Bar Court?
22
Judge McElroy: No, he's not affiliated with the State Bar court.
23
He's from the State Bar's office, the Office of Trial Counsel.
24
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
25
Judge McElroy: So what I'm saying is that he can sit in the
26
27
healing.
Mr. Coughlin: Even though it is confidential?
28
114/433
1
2
Judge McElroy: Yes, because he's from that.

Mr. Coughlin: Is he working on this case?
Judge McElroy: No, he's not working on this case.
Mr. Coughlin: Then can I ask why he is here then?
Judge McElroy: it doesn't matter why he's here he works in the
State Bar.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so anybody who works in the State Bar...
Judge McElroy: Anyone who works in the chief trial counsel's
ms.
9
office can sit in, other witnesses can't or other people from the public,
it's not open to the public.
10
(The oath was administered to Officer Jeff George.)
11
Ms. Kagan: Good morning Officer George, can you please state
12
your current employment.
13
G: I am currently employed by the State of California
14
specifically the California highway patrol and I'm assigned to the
15
North Sacramento area office.
16
Ms. Kagan: How long have you been in that position I've been
17
employed by highway patrol for 16 and a half years and I've been
18
assigned to the north Sacramento station for 11 years.
19
Ms. Kagan: And as part of your job do you have to make arrests?
20
G: I do.
21
Ms. Kagan: Have you ever made any arrests for DUI and how
22
23
24
25
26
27
many arrest for DUI have you made Officer George?

G: I personally made about 3,000 DUI arrests over my career and
assisted in maybe 4,000 additional.
Ms. Kagan: And before you made those arrests, did you have any
training in DUI arrests?
G: I do.
28
115/433
Ms. Kagan: what kind of training do you have?
G: I originally received my training which was 52 hours in DUI
training while in the CHP Academy in 1990.
Ms. Kagan: do you have any additional training?
G: I do.
Ms. Kagan: what is that.
G: I was certified as a drug recognition evaluator in 1988. That
8
ms.
9
10
course consisted of 80 hours of classroom and 40 hours of field

certifications where I did hands-on basically, put my classroom my
skills to use and did hands on evaluations of persons that were under
the influence and various types of drugs.
11
Ms. Kagan: what exactly were you taught?
12
G: basically, there's a 13th step process to go through evaluation
13
process we were taught each of the thirteen steps we were taught what
14
drugs have what symptoms you know symptomology to look for and
15
how to administer a given set of tests that check for those various
16
symptoms.
17
18
19
Ms. Kagan: do you recall arresting Mr. Coughlin, who is the

applicant in this matter, and how do you call that?
G: I do. Originally, when I was subpoenaed by this Court I
20
reviewed the arrest report and I remember distinctly making this
21
arrest and also when I saw him today I remember him also.
22
23
24
Ms. Kagan: Can you turn to exhibit 69 pleased that's in the binder
that's in front of you. Do you recognize it at 69?
G: Yes, The first page of the exhibit mark number 69 is the arrest
25
report commonly referred to as the booking sheet for the Sacramento
26
County Jail. On the next page would be the probable cause declaration
27
which is also a Sacramento County Jail form.
28
116/433
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, could I make an objection?
Judge McElroy: sure it has to be a legal objection.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, my objection would be relevancy.
Specifically pointing to in the application for admission to the State
Bar it deals with convictions and we're talking about an arrest right
here and as I understand this application, arrest don't even need to be
reported, right? If you had a conviction, you report the conviction and
that's it. And, so I don't understand the relevancy.
ms.
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule the objection because it
goes to what's reported, it goes to the issue of your whether you were
10
11
12
candid.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so reporting something that didn't even need
to be reported does that show candor?
13
Judge McElroy: reporting something that didn't need to be
14
reported, that shows, that might show candor depends on what you say
15
about what you reported which is I'm assuming at this point, it might
16
be the State Bar is presenting evidence that what you reported wasn't
17
candid.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so would one be better off not reporting this
arrest at all?
Judge McElroy: That is not an objection, so I'm going to overrule
the objection.
Ms. Kagan: sorry Officer George, can you continue to page 3 of
exhibit 16.
G: Page three would be referred to as a CHP 202 which is driving
25
under the influence arrest investigation report this is a four-page
26
document that was prepared by me on January twenty-third of 2003.
27
Ms. Kagan: Was the arrest on January twenty thirty, 2003?
28
117/433
G: It was.
Ms. Kagan: Did you prepare exhibit 69 pages one through nine?
G: Yes, there are actually two separate reports, pages one through
four would be the driving under the influence arrest report, then there
is a supplemental report which is a 202 D.R.E, that's a CHP form, it's a
drug recognition evaluation it's a supplemental to the arrest report and
that report is also four pages.
8
ms.
9
10
11
Ms. Kagan: Did you prepare both of these reports?

G: I did.
Ms. Kagan: okay do you have a chance to review these, well, first
of all your honor, I, uh...
Judge McElroy: my understanding just to clear up matters is this
12
an arrest that led to the conviction of a reckless, so it is a conviction, so
13
that's another reason why your objection would be overruled.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand your honor.
15
Judge McElroy: It is an arrest that led to a conviction for a dry
16
17
reckless. Convictions are your duty, you have to report convictions.

Mr. Coughlin: Right, but does that mean you have to report the
18
charges that you were arrested for if those weren't didn't lead to
19
conviction.
20
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: it doesn't matter it is a conviction at this point,

it's a conviction, so let's just proceed.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor I request to have exhibit 69 pages one
through nine moved into evidence.
24
Judge McElroy: Is there any objection?
25
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, I would object on preserving an objection on
26
that the grounds that I don't believe this is something that can be
27
admitted given the application.
28
118/433
Judge McElroy: What is the legal objection?
Mr. Coughlin: Foundation, relevancy and hearsay, not properly
authenticated.
Judge McElroy: It is overruled, it's admitted.
Ms. Kagan: Officer, did you have a chance to review this report
before testifying today.
G: I have.
Ms. Kagan: And is it your opinion that the statements made in
ms.
9
your reports are an accurate representation of what happened during

the arrest of Mr. Coughlin.
10
G: They are.
11
Ms. Kagan: And, can you describe how the arrest took place?
12
G: This arrest basically stems from a traffic stop for a minor
13
infraction which was non-use of a safety restraint or seat belt. Mr.
14
Coughlin was the sole occupant in a vehicle he was observed while
15
stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Howe Avenue and
16
Cottage Way without his seat belt on. I made a traffic stop and
17
contacted him, he was identified by a Nevada driver's license while he
18
was stopped and during the conversation with Mr. Coughlin and I
19
noticed objective symptoms of intoxication and possible drug influence.
20
Ms. Kagan: What were those symptoms?
21
G: I noticed that his eyes were red and watery. I could smell a
22
strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana inside his vehicle, when I had
23
him to step out of his vehicle he was unsteady on his feet. I could smell
24
the odor of the freshly burnt marijuana about his person, his hair, his
25
clothing. When I got close to his breath smelled of marijuana his
26
pupils were dilated for the lighting conditions and slow to react to light
27
28
119/433
light stimulus and on the totality of all of that based on my training
and experience I felt that I needed to proceed further and investigate.
Ms. Kagan: And, what happened?
G: He was eventually given some field sobriety tests which he was
unable to perform as demonstrated or explained and he was arrested
for driving under the influence.

Ms. Kagan: What did you believe Mr. Coughlin to be under the
7
8
influence of at the time that you made the arrest?

G: My initial suspicion was I cannabis or marijuana. He was
ms.
9
transported after being arrested down to the Sacramento County Jail
10
where a drug recognition evaluation was conducted in a controlled
11
environment at the completion of that I confirmed my suspicions that
12
he was under the influence of marijuana.

Ms. Kagan: When you asked Mr. Coughlin to perform those tests,
13
14
what tests did you ask him to perform?
15
G: A Romberg test.
16
Ms. Kagan: Can you explain what that is?
17
G: basically Mr. Coughlin was asked to stand with feet together
18
heels and toes touching his arms down at his side, to tip his head back
19
and to estimate thirty seconds. He was not able to do that. Well,
20
initially, he did tip his head back, he did keep his arms down at his
21
sides. He swayed with a variance of about three inches and during the
22
30 seconds, slowly, slowly lowered his head instead of keeping his head
23
back.
24
Ms. Kagan: So would you say that he passed that test or failed?
25
G: They were not really pass or fail. They're designed it to check
26
for divided attention impairment. I would say that he did not perform
27
that test sufficiently.
28
120/433
1
2
3
Ms. Kagan: What other tests did you ask Mr. Coughlin to
perform?
G: A standing on one foot test. That test consists of having Mr.
Coughlin from a position that he was previously in, put his feet
together, heels and toes touching, and raise one foot approximately six
inches from the ground, keeping his toe pointed forward, arms down at
his sides. He was instructed to look at his foot and count aloud from
1001 to 1030.
ms.
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: Was he able to perform that?

G: No sufficiently, no.
Ms. Kagan: Okay, were there any other tests that that you asked
him to perform?
G: Yes, he was given a finger count test and that test consists of
13
having one hand held up, palm open using the thumb as a pointer
14
touching it to the tips of the fingers starting with the pinky and
15
counting each finger aloud with thumb to pinky being one, the next
16
finger being two, three, four, then an open hand is five, then in a
17
reverse order open hand again is five, four, three, two, and one.
18
Ms. Kagan: Was he able to perform that test?
19
G: He did perform the test but not sufficiently. He counted from
20
one to five in both directions.
21
tests that he was given?
Ms. Kagan: Where there any other
22
G: At that point, no.
23
Ms. Kagan: An you stated that there is another point where he
24
was actually taken somewhere and given different testing?
25
G: Yes, he was taking down to the Sacramento County main jail
26
where he was given some additional tests as part of the procedure for
27
the drug recognition evaluation.
28
121/433
Q: Who gave him those tests.
A: I did.
Q: And, what tests were those?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, I don't see in the report where some of
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
this is?
Judge McElroy: That is not an objection. What you need to do this
cross-examine if you have problems with it. It is overruled.
Q: Officer, what tests were given at that later time?
A: Again, he was given a Romberg test, he was given a walking
heel to toe test, a standing on one foot, and a finger to nose test
performance.
11
Q: And, how did he perform those tests according to your opinion.
12
A: He did not perform them as demonstrated or explained.
13
Q: In your opinion, have you made arrests before for driving
14
under the influence of marijuana?
15
A: I have.
16
Q: Is there anything specific that you look for with respect to
17
18
driving under the influence of marijuana?

A: Marijuana influence there is certain physical indicators. One
19
would be the dilated pupils, slow to respond to light stimulus and
20
increased marijuana influence can result in an increased heart rate
21
and increase blood pressure, body temperature could be increased.
22
There's a test that we do as part of the eye evaluation, it's called a lack
23
of convergence. When one smokes marijuana, you will tend to tend to
24
see that lack of convergence meaning that their eyes won't cross, one
25
eye will generally kick-out, and that was present in this case. One part
26
of the eye evaluation requires that you be taken into a dark room to
27
allow his eyes adjust to the darkness and under different stages a light
28
122/433
would be introduced at different strengths, you know a person who is
not under the influence, their eyes would react one way. His eyes
reacted in a way that was consistent with my training experience for
marijuana influence. If I can backtrack a little bit another thing that
we check would be we look in someone's mouth and pull the lower lip
down and look for debris in in their gums or teeth, stick out their
tongue look for indications of what I would consider recent marijuana
use and that would be indicated by the green that's in the marijuana
ms.
comes out and stains the tongue when people smoke it, so we checked
the tongue and in this case his tongue was coated with a great pastry
10
11
12
13
film.
Ms. Kagan: Can you estimate based on your experience whether
Mr. Coughlin had ingested marijuana within the past 24 hours?
G: Again, based on my training and what I've been trained to look
14
for marijuana impairment is generally up to four hours and beyond
15
that you wouldn't necessarily see the indicators that he displayed to me.
16
So, if I had to put a time estimate, I would say for sure within 24 hours
17
and more than likely within four hours of the time of the arrest.
18
Q: In your experience, are you aware of any instances where
19
somebody would maybe have smoked marijuana in the weeks preceding
20
an arrest and still shows signs that you were talking about that Mr.
21
Coughlin exhibited?
22
A: No. Let's say a daily user for marijuana, again, the signs of
23
impairment are only going to last about four hours from the time you
24
use, so if you had smoked a week prior he may come back positive for
25
THC or marijuana in his chemical tests but he would show no signs of
26
impairment.
27
28
123/433
Q: And in your opinion was Mr. Coughlin showing signs of
impairment at the time that you arrested him on January 23 rd, 2003?
A: Most definitely.
Q: I have no further questions your honor.
Judge McElroy: Cross-examination?
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: Hello Officer George, how are you?
A: I'm very well thank you, how are you?
ms.
9
Q: Fine thanks. Officer George like to ask you a few initial

questions. I assume you graduated from high school?
10
A: I did.
11
Q: Can you tell me what your GPA was in high school?
12
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy and beyond the scope of direct.
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Your honor I think it goes to...no?
15
Judge McElroy: No.
16
By Mr. Coughlin:
17
Q: All right, did you go to college Officer George?
18
A: I attended some college.
19
Q: Did you graduate from college?
20
A: I did not.
21
Q: Can you describe what and how much college, what sort of
22
classes you took?
23
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy.
24
Mr. Coughlin: He's an expert, right? He is a drug recognition
25
expert who got out of high school, so...
26
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection.
27
Mr. Coughlin: Okay so we can't go into this experts...
28
124/433
Judge McElroy: You can go into his expertise. He has been a
highway patrol officer for 16 years he's made three thousand DUI
arrest in his career, go into that. His training, 52 hours as I understand,
he is certified as a drug recognition evaluator, okay? You can go into
those...
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: But, we can't go into whether he took science

courses or anything like and did some community college?
Judge McElroy: What you need to do is go into his training as a
person who has made three thousand arrests.
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: Officer George you made three thousand arrests and assisted in
11
some four thousand others, where would that fall, where would that
12
compare to your peers as someone who has been a highway patrol
13
officer for 11 years, you said?
14
A: 16.
15
Q: Okay, where's that fall? Are you are you like a hall-of-fame or
16
are you like?
17
18
Judge McElroy: Sustained, and also your tone needs to be
19
20
21
22
23
different.
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor. What if one officer made twenty
thousand arrests and another officer made five hundred?
Judge McElroy: You are not to ask the court questions you're
supposed to proceed as an attorney.
24
Mr. Coughlin: I'm arguing my objection.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, and what I'm saying is the objection should
26
be a legal objection. not a speaking objection.
27
28
125/433
1
2
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: Okay and her objection was relevancy and I'm
explaining why it should not be sustained...
Judge McElroy: And I have sustained it, so you need to ask the
next question.
Mr. Coughlin: So I don't get an opportunity to...
Judge McElroy: you need to ask the next question, let's ask the
7
8
ms.
9
10
next question.
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: okay so is that is that high number of arrests for DUI? Where
do you compare to your peers?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy and
this is already ruled on, Your Honor.
11
Judge McElroy: Your question is 3000 arrests, right?
12
Mr. Coughlin: Where does that fit in?
13
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Well he's certainly...okay, Your Honor. Officer
15
George you certainly went into a lot of detail and got to speak on pretty
16
much whatever it is Miss Kagan asked you about so we got a good idea
17
of you know your background as it relates to things Ms. Kagan, wants
18
us to know.
19
Judge McElroy: What's the question?
20
Q: Well let's go to the arrest. Do you recall pulling me over for
21
having my seat belt off?
22
A: I do.
23
Q: Can you describe that? Were you driving your vehicle?
24
A: I might have to refer to the report, but I believe so.
25
Q: Okay, and was there someone with you?
26
A Yes.
27
Q: And who was that?
28
126/433
A: Officer Amy Escatel.
Q: Okay, but she didn't contribute to this report. What was her
role that day?
A: Cover.
Q: Okay, so she was covering?
A: Correct.
Q: And, for instance, if her opinions, if they differed from yours,
8
ms.
9
would they be included in this report?

A: No, she's not the arresting nor the evaluating officer.
Q: Okay, so she doesn't get to have an opinion?
10
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative and...
11
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it on relevancy grounds.
12
Q: Okay, can you tell me during this arrest, you pulled me over
13
have my seat belt off, you noticed as you were driving past me at a
14
stoplight you noticed I have my seat belt off, you might have been
15
driving and while that time if you were driving you notice somebody
16
who's at a stoplight, so you turn around and pull me over, do you recall
17
asking me to take a blood alcohol test?
18
A: At which point?
19
Q: That would be after you pulled me over while we're still on the
20
side of the road.
21
A: Again, you're gonna have to narrow it down. At which point?
22
Q: Any point?
23
A: Yes, after you were arrested, I explained to you the implied
24
consent law in the state of California which requires you to submit to
25
all your blood breath or urine test.
26
Q: Prior to being arrested? Shortly after being pulled over.
27
A: Did I ask you to take....
28
127/433
1
2
Q: A blood-blow test?
A: No.
Q: You didn't?
A: No.
Q: You don't recall a conversation that took place between us
regarding that wherein shortly after pulling me over you asked me to
get out of the car and take a blood-alcohol blow test and this was after I
told you how I had had to drink that night?
ms.
9
Ms. Kagan: Objection, is this a question?

Mr. Coughlin: I have not even finished my question.
10
Judge McElroy: Why don't you ask the question.
11
Q: My question is why don't you remember this when I have a
12
memory of having a long conversation about this?
13
Ms. Kagan: Objection.
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't you ask a proper question?
15
Mr. Coughlin: So you never? Why didn't you? You're saying you
16
pulled someone over on suspicion of DUI and yet you didn't ask them to
17
take a blow test?
18
19
20
21
G: Well, that's actually incorrect. What I pulled you over for was
non-use of seat belt.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, that was the pretext you pulled me over to go
ahead.
22
Ms. Kagan: Objection to the word pretext.
23
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection, let's ask a legal
24
question.
25
Q: Okay, and he was answering.
26
Judge McElroy: No. What's your question?
27
28
128/433
Q: Well my question that he was answering was why didn't you do
a field sobriety blow test in the field? And you were going into why you
pulled me over and what you use that for.
4
5
A: Were you gonna let me answer the original question or was

there gonna be a narrative after that?
Q: Yes, sure, go ahead, Officer George.
A: Okay, so the question was why didn't I have you take a blow
8
ms.
9
10
11
test at the scene?

Q: Yeah.
A: Because at no time did I suspect that you were under the
influence of alcohol and that's what that test would check for.
Q: Okay, do you recall saying to me after I asked you why you
12
wanted me to take a blow test saying you can do it or you cannot do it
13
but if you refuse to take this blow tests I'll just arrest you and then you
14
have to go to the station and take a urine or a blood?
15
A: No.
16
Q: Do you recall yourself and myself having a discussion about
17
the legal merits of asking someone to take a blow test when you have no
18
reason to believe they've had a drink that night?
19
A: No.
20
Q: You don't recall that either? It is long conversation.
21
Judge McElroy: let him answer the question first.
22
A: Actually my recollection of the conversation with you was that
23
you felt that because you were a law student that I could not prove that
24
you were under the influence of anything and that you had not been
25
drinking other than one glass of wine approximately four hours prior
26
to being stopped.
27
28
129/433
1
2
Q: Were we discussing that in the context of you wanting me to

take a blow test?
A: No, that was...
Q: Why were we discussing that then?
Judge McElroy: You're gonna have to let him finish his answers.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I just wanted a yes or no, Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: I understand that but as yesterday when you
when you were asked questions and you wanted to explain I always
ms.
9
allowed you to explain a yes or no answer. He is allowed to explain a

yes or no answer.
10
G: Okay, now I'm confused what was the question?
11
Judge McElroy: Why don't you ask the question again?
12
Q: I asked why whether or not you you asked for a blow test and
13
then I asked you if you remember the legal kind of discussion we had
14
about why. I was asking you do you have a right to make me take a
15
blow test if I haven't demonstrated any signs of intoxication and you
16
don't smell alcohol and all you have is you pulled me over for a seat
17
belt and then you got mad that I would challenge your authority.
18
19
20
Judge McElroy: Why don't you ask him the question, not ask.
What is your question?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm asking him explain why he was just saying
21
what he was saying about I didn't have you take one in the field
22
because you and I were having a conversation about the the merits of
23
doing so in the field and then I explained to you so...
24
Judge McElroy: Okay, ask the question. What is the question?
25
Q: Okay, did you have me take a blow test in the field?
26
A: No.
27
28
130/433
Q: Did we discuss taking a blow test in the field and did you get
1
2
upset once I...
Ms. Kagan: Objection, compound.
Judge McElroy: Okay, it is sustained.
Q: Did you discuss taking a blow test in the field with me?
A: No.
Q: Okay, can you explain what you were just describing in
8
ms.
relation to that, or can we have it read back because he went in to

describingJudge McElroy: We don't have a read back. You have to remember
9
10
the question you asked.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
12
A: I believe what I stated-
13
Q: Something about being a law student, I remember that, okay, so
14
obviously we're talking, right? We were talking about law stuff and
15
you were saying: you're a law student you think you can tell me what
16
I-
17
A: No, that's not my recollection of the conversation.
18
Mr. Coughlin: I remember you were belligerent towards lawyers
19
20
21
when we were talking.

Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative and there's no question
pending.
22
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Let's ask a question, okay?
23
Q: Can you tell me why you knew I was in law school?
24
A: Because you made it very clear that you wanted me to know
25
that, you stated to me that you were in law school.
26
Q: Do you remember having a discussion were you were saying:
27
Wow, three years of law school down the drain, huh? No? You don't
28
131/433
remember that? Do you remember us having a discussion about law
school?
A: The discussion we had about law school and my recollection
was that you told me that you were in law school and that there was no
way you were going to get a DUI when you had not been drinking and I
didn't give you a breath test in the field.
Q: Wait, now we're talking about breath tests?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what is the next question?
ms.
9
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: Now we're talking about breath tests?

Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin.
G: And, again, as I stated earlier, this all took place after you had
been taken into custody.
12
Q: In the car or-
13
A: Yes.
14
Q: Or at the station?
15
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what you need to do is ask
16
17
18
19
questions, okay?
Q: Okay. So, in the field, we didn't talk about a breath test in the
field? That never came up?
A: Okay, again, I didn't offer you a breath test in the field because
20
at no time did I suspect you were under the influence of alcohol and
21
that is what that test checks for.
22
Q: And I didn't refuse to take a breath test in the field?
23
A: You weren't offered one. There wasn't anything for you to
24
refuse.
25
Q: Right. Okay. And would that be noted in your report?
26
A: If you were given a breath test? Yes.
27
28
132/433
Q: And if I wasn't given a breath test? Wouldn't that be standard
1
2
for a DUI to test for a breath test?
A: No.
Q: It wouldn't be?
A: Are you asking me the same question? Yeah, the answer is still
the same. No.

Q: Yeah, can you explain that to me? You're arresting someone for
7
8
ms.
9
DUI but you don't give them blow test, whatever-you-call-it, a breath
test?
A: I'm not sure that you have a comprehension of how this works.
10
Mr. Coughlin: I am not sure how anyone could, but go ahead.
11
A: That field breath testing referring to is called a preliminary
12
alcohol screening device. It's a field sobriety test to further assist me in
13
determining whether or not you're under the influence of alcohol.
14
Again at no time during my contact with you did I suspect that you
15
were under the influence of alcohol. That is why you were not offered
16
that test in the field.
17
Q: Di you ask me how much you had to drink that night?
18
A: I did.
19
Q: Why?
20
A: Because it's a standard question.
21
Q: Like taking a breath test would be standard?
22
A: Again, that is not a breath test, it's a preliminary alcohol
23
screening device.
24
Mr. Coughlin: Whatever-
25
A: It's a field sobriety test-
26
Mr. Coughlin: Let's just say breath test, okay?
27
A: That would be an incorrect statement.
28
133/433
Q: Okay.
A: It's not a breath test.
Q: But you're blowing your breath into it and testing something?
A: It is a field sobriety test to determine, to assist me in
determining-
Q: What would you like me to call it?
A: It's called a preliminary alcohol screening device.
Q: So, you take a test from a preliminary alcohol screening device?
ms.
9
A: That is a field sobriety tests to further assist me in

determining whether or not you're under the influence of alcohol?
10
Q: Does it give you a reading?
11
A: It does give a reading.
12
Q: Like a .08 or below or under that kind of thing?
13
A: We're talking again hypothetically because this doesn't none of
14
this applies in your case you were not offered that test because I at no
15
time did I suspect you were under the influence of alcohol.
16
Q: But at some point I took that test, right?
17
A: You did as part of the procedure for the drug evaluation, the
18
part of that procedure is to rule out alcohol as an intoxicant.
19
Q: But you wouldn't do that at the scene?
20
A: Correct.
21
Q: But you did it later?
22
A: Correct, because it's one of the process, it's part of the process for
23
the drug evaluation. I knew that you were going to come back zero. You
24
were not suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. That's part
25
of the procedure at that time to take that test.
26
Q: Did we discuss that in the field?
27
A: No.
28
134/433
Q: We didn't discuss that you knew I was going to come back zero
1
2
for alcohol?
A: No.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, asked and answered.
Judge McElroy: At this point, no more questions in that area. I
think it's clear he did not arrest you forMr. Coughlin: Your Honor, if I may just explain why I'm going
7
8
ms.
9
10
into this, because it's my belief that Officer George got upset with me
for taking issue with his wanting to do a breath test for me when I
knew that I-
let's go on to the next question.

Q: You say on the Romberg test that I went: 5, 4, 3, something
11
12
Judge McElroy: You have explored that issue, okay,
like that? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?
13
A: No, that would be the finger count test, not the Romberg test.
14
Q: Okay, you're the expert, right?
15
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative.
16
17
Q: Okay on the finger count test, can you describe again how how I
18
failed that test?

A: Yes, you counted one through five and then one through five
19
20
again when you're supposed to count five through one.
21
Q: And did you know that in your report?
22
A: I did.
23
Q: Because I don't see that. Can you explain that to me where that
24
25
is?
A: Sure, okay, page three of the arrest for driving under the
26
influence arrest report line 9 says finger count the subject counted
27
12345 12345 on all three repetitions.
28
135/433
Q: I'm sorry I'm having trouble finding this is on exhibit 69?
A: Correct?
Q: Okay, page three?
A: Page three of the CHP 202 driving under the influence arrest
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
report.
Q: Can you go by the bates stamps that are at the bottom? Oh,
okay, I see what you're saying.
Judge McElroy: What is your next question.
Q: Is that noted elsewhere in your report?
A: I'm sorry?
10
Q: I see that on the psycho-physical test there is a finger to nose.
11
A: You're looking at a different area of the report. That's under
12
the drug evaluation.
13
Q: Okay, because as I'm reading your report it kind of sounds like,
14
I'm wondering how I would be able to stand up? Because it sounds like
15
I failed every single thing you asked me to do.
16
Judge McElroy: What you need to do is just ask a question, okay?
17
Q: Well that's what I'm asking. How could someone who's you
18
know as you describe me in here possibly even stand up?
19
A: I'm not sure that-
20
Q: Able to function somewhat but failed every test you gave them
21
22
type thing?
A: Well, again the tests check for divided attention impairment,
23
they are not pass or fail. Divided attention impairment is the ability to
24
do more than one thing one simple task.
25
Q: But you were giving me a pass or fail, weren't you? You weren't
26
saying in shades of gray, you were saying he didn't perform it
27
satisfactory, did not perform as he was supposed. That was your
28
136/433
testimony again and again, it was either a pass/fail, it's not shade of
grey according to you?
A: No, actually my testimony was that you didn't perform them
sufficiently. That you did not perform them as demonstrated or
explained.
Q: Like pass or fail?
A: Well, again, they are not pass or fail tests.
ms.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection. I think he's
always described it as it was a question of, as I saw it, gray, and you
10
11
12
13
14
didn't perform sufficiently.

Mr. Coughlin: So it's once you don't do it grey, then it becomes pass
or fail?
Judge McElroy: His characterization is not pass fail, his
characterization is not performing sufficiently.
15
Mr. Coughlin: And if you don't perform sufficiently that's noted?
16
Judge McElroy: And it was noted, okay, so lets go to the next
17
18
19
question.
Mr. Coughlin: To what degree, though, is it noted? If you fell flat
on your face is that distinguished from swaying two inches?
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: That's pretty, right?
22
A: It would be.
23
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question?
24
Mr. Coughlin: Unless this report is just beyond reproach and
25
everything in it is considered sacrosanct, Your Honor, I don't want to
26
question that if that's the case, but if its the case that-
27
Judge McElroy: I am just asking you to ask the questions.
28
137/433
Mr. Coughlin: We are able to look at what he's doing here and see
if he's just an officer who is kind of a rogue prosecutor like in the Duke
case, or what?
Judge McElroy: I am asking you to ask a question. Ask a question.
Q: Okay, so you asked me if I had anything to drink that night.
A: I did.
Q: And you noted it in your report?
ms.
A: I did.
Q: And how much then had I had to drink that night?
10
A: I believe you told me one glass of wine around 6pm.
11
Q: Okay. And have you ever smoked marijuana, Officer George?
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Couldn't that go into whether or not you could tell
15
16
17
18
19
20
if someoneJudge McElroy: You are the one that is on trial here, not the
officer, okay, so you need to ask a question.
Mr. Coughlin: If he is scared to answer that or if he is afraid of
looking like a hypocriteJudge McElroy: I made my ruling on the case, on the question so
21
let's move on, let's move on. The questions need to be relevant to this
22
hearing.
23
Q: At any time throughout the arrest, particularly when first
24
pulled over, would you say I was argumentative? How would you
25
describe our interaction on a human level.
26
27
A: Similar to your behavior today, I would consider you somewhat

argumentative, passive-aggressive maybe.
28
138/433
Q: Can you describe that?
A: Like, again, similar to your behavior today.
Q: I mean in relation to that night and give examples of what you
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
mean and how you mean?

A: Not really other than your were acting similar to how you're
acting today.
Q: Was it in a situation like where you asked me to take a blow
test and I said why should take a blow test and like that?
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection, it's irrelevant.
10
Q: Could you give me some situation?
11
A: Sure, like for example when I asked you where were are you
12
coming from tonight you said were you coming from.
13
Q: I did? Is that noted in your report?
14
A: No.
15
Q: But you remember that from how long ago?
16
A: I do.
17
Q: And you can't remember whether you were driving or not that
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
night?
Ms. Kagan: Objection that wasn't even a question posed, Your
Honor.
Mr. Coughlin: He did say he couldn't remember whether he was
the one driving or not.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection, this is totally
irrelevant.
Mr. Coughlin: That's an amazing memory, you can't remember if
you were driving but you can remember something like-
27
28
139/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: This line of questioning is totally irrelevant.

Let's go on.
Q: So we're not going to get into whether you- have you ever been
around someone who's smoking marijuana:
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Relevancy.
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know how in the hell a guy can get up there
8
ms.
9
and says an expert on something if he doesn't even have to answer

whether he's ever been around it.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you need to ask a legal question.
10
Q: Have you ever been around someone-
11
Judge McElroy: He has made 3,000 arrests, okay?
12
Q: Have you ever been around freshly burnt marijuana?
13
A: Yes.
14
Q: Can you describe that? When was that? A part of the training
15
at your DRE class?
16
A: Yes.
17
Q: There was freshly burnt marijuana?
18
A: Yes.
19
Q: And was it being burned? How was it being burned? Was
20
somebody smoking it?
21
A: No.
22
Q: How was it, how were they getting, they were just putting a
23
24
25
26
27
flame to it?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I am not allowing this line of questioning
anymore it's totally irrelevant.
Mr. Coughlin: Sorry, Your Honor, so is there any question I can
ask that relates to-
28
140/433
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: The point is you have pled guilty to a reckless, a

dry reckless, so let's move on from there.
Mr. Coughlin: But that's not what Ms. Kagan is bringing this up
for her whole thing is what? She is not trying to to establish that I
pled guilty to a dry reckless. We didn't need to spend all this time and
taxpayer money collecting all this stuff if that was the point because I
admitted that, I reported that.
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
Judge McElroy: What is the next question.

Mr. Coughlin: Why are we even getting into this? And, if if there's
a reason, then am I allowed to rebut it?
Judge McElroy: I'm not here to answer your questions, you need to
ask questions.
Mr. Coughlin: My questions go into why we're getting into this?
Why are we talking about this arrest and in all this detail?
14
Judge McElroy: Do you have a question to ask this officer?
15
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah.
16
Judge McElroy: Okay, what is the question?
17
Q: Have you ever smelled freshly burnt marijuana?
18
Judge McElroy: That has been asked and answered. Next
19
question.
20
Ms. Kagan: Asked and answered.
21
Q: How do you know you're smelling freshly burnt marijuana?
22
A: Because it has a different smell then then non burnt
23
marijuana.
24
Q: Is that like a smoky smell?
25
A: Again it's hard to describe. Its a clearly recognizable smell.
26
Q: Like this standard for obscenity, kind of?
27
28
141/433
Judge McElroy: I am not allowing any more questions in this area
1
2
you need to move on to another area.

Q: Officer George, did we discuss any physical problems that I
3
4
had?
A: I did ask you if you had a physical defect, yes.
Q: And can you tell me what I answered?
A: You had chronic back pain and you were taking prescription
8
ms.
9
10
Lortab.
Q: Okay, now generally do you have people with chronic back and
neck pain stand back and look at the sky and have them count to thirty,
is that pretty normal for you?
11
12
13
A: Well, first off, I believe my answer was that you said you had
14
chronic back pain so I don't think we've established that you had neck
15
pain also, and yes, that is a standard field sobriety test that is given.
16
17
Q: Would you give that to someone who had one of those halos on
their head like one of those-
18
19
Judge McElroy: Sustained, next question.
20
Q: Would you give someone who had a neck brace on?
21
22
23
Q: Would you give it to someone-
24
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna not allow any more questions in this
25
26
27
this area. I don't think it's relevant. What's the next question?
Q: Do you have some sort of performance incentive for the number
of DUI's you give, is there a quota?
28
142/433
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule it.
A: Is the question whether there is a quota or a performance
4
5
incentive?
Q: Yeah, like if, let's say you gave one DUI a year compared to a
guy gave 10,000, how would that be seen by your sergeant or whoever is
this your boss?
A: I can't answer for my sergeant. I believe the question was is
ms.
there a quota? No, there is not. They actually let us arrest as many
people as we want to.
10
Q: Okay, and some people arrest more?
11
A: Some people arrest more and some people arrest less.
12
Q: Do you consider yourself someone who arrests more or less?
13
14
15
Q: Are you a high performer?
16
17
18
Q: Do you give more arrests than your average officer for DUI?
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: How can that not be relevant?
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: Do you give more or less? What if he's given more
24
25
DUI arrest than any other officer in the history of California.

Judge McElroy: I am going to take a brief recess. Can you? We
26
are going to take a brief recess at this point and I will talk to you. You
27
can step outside, yes.
28
143/433
Court Personnel: Do you want to go off the record, Your Honor?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Judge McElroy: Okay, we're back on the record.
Q: Officer George, can you tell me in your report bate stamp page
8 it says he had an altered sense of time this is on the Romberg and
altered sense of time estimated 30 seconds in 33 seconds. Can you tell
me what would be not qualified as an altered sense of time? Would
ms.
that be 30 seconds in 30 seconds.

A: Yes.
Q: So, somebody who who can close their eyes and without the aid
10
11
of any mechanical device or watch, who can just count and know
12
exactly how a long second is and hit it within say a tenth of a second
13
within 30 seconds is that what would be acceptable or what would fail
14
that? I mean, 33-seconds, obviously if you are off by by three.
15
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Compound.
16
Judge McElroy: Ask a question, don't get into narratives.
17
Q: What would fail? Well, strike that, we know 33 failed, right?
18
33 out of 30, so what is a passing score, 32 out of 30?
19
A: No, again, I'm looking for totality of the situation.
20
Q: But we're not talking about that we're talking about this one
21
part.
22
A: No, actually we are.
23
Q: I don't want to hear about your totality, okay.
24
Ms. Kagan: Objection, allow the witness to answer the question.
25
Judge McElroy: Allow the witness to answer the question.
26
Mr. Coughlin: I want an answer that is a yes or no, or an answer
27
that is tailored to this.
28
144/433
Judge McElroy: I understand that but remember yesterday you
1
2
were allowed to explain yes or no answers? So, please what's your
question now?
Q: On this second test here, what is a passing?
A: Okay, I'm not sure, number one, which-
Q: In a number of seconds as in is 32 passing? Something like
that.
A: Okay you're not referring to the second test, which would be the
8
ms.
walk and turn test you're, referring to still the Romberg test?
Q: Yes.
9
10
A: And you're asking me what would be passing?
11
Q: Yes.
12
A: They're not pass or fail tests, I can't give you an answer for
13
14
that.
Q: Okay, well what would not qualify as having an altered sense
15
of time, because that's that's the buzz words you're using in this
16
particular- I know you use a lot of buzz words, what will work, what
17
won't work, stuff like that.
18
Judge McElroy: Will you just a question, not a narrative?
19
Q: What would not be an altered sense of time? If 33 is an altered
20
21
22
sense, if 33 out of 30.

Judge McElroy: Just ask the question, what would not be an
altered sense of time, that's the question.
23
Q: That's the question, Officer George.
24
A: Well, again, what would not be an altered sense of time would
25
be 30 seconds, however, that's not what this test is based on. It's not
26
based solely on the seconds, which is what you seem to be hung up on.
27
Q: Well there's not more, there's not much to go on there.
28
145/433
Judge McElroy: What is the next question?
Q: Well I didn't understand his answer, because, okay, obviously
30.00 is not altered, but in terms of-
Mr. Coughlin: In terms of looking at human beings what would be
something where someone would perform this test and you would not
write: he had an altered sense of timing or I assumed you would write:
ms.
his timing was not altered?

Judge McElroy: Let's ask a question, no narrative, okay, otherwise
10
11
I'm not going to allow you to cross-examine anymore.
12
A: I have had cases where the person did not sway and their time
13
estimation was right on 30 seconds. It's a totality of the circumstances,
14
again, these are not pass fail tests.

Q: Great, can you be more specific because did anybody can say
15
16
these are totality-of-the-circumstances-
17
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, argumentative and-
18
Judge McElroy: Sustained let's go to the next question.
19
Q: If I had gotten 31 seconds, what would that have gotten charted
20
as?
21
22
Judge McElroy: I am gonna overrule it. You want to ask the 31
23
24
25
26
seconds.
A: Again, you would, based on the totality if you swayed it would
say the you swayed and how many inches.
Q: We are not talking about swayed, Officer George.
27
28
146/433
1
2
3
4
5
Judge McElroy: Please, do not argue with the witness, his answer
is answer. Move on to the next question.
Mr. Coughlin: Did we even discuss seconds because he just
discussed swayed?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I am going to not allow you to ask
any more questions if you cannot act like a lawyer and ask the question,
a proper question.
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
Q: If I took 31 and a half seconds can you tell me what would wind
up in your report?
A: Objection, relevancy.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him ask that
question and that's the last question in this area.
A: Well the report would say the number of seconds that you
estimated 30 seconds in be it 29, 28, 30, 31, 31.
14
Judge McElroy: What's the next question?
15
Q: But in this report, he put it into the context of a sentence that
16
said he had an altered sense of timing estimating blah, blah, blah, so
17
you're not just putting numbers in there you're you're putting an
18
altered sense of timing so what would 31 and a half get me?
19
A: It would get you 31 and a half seconds.
20
Q: With that would you say he had an altered sense of timing
21
22
estimating 31 and a half seconds in33 seconds? That's what I'm asking.
A: Okay, again I don't think you have an understanding of how
23
the test works. Whether or not your time estimation is off, the test
24
itself checks for divided attention impairment which is standing with
25
your head back and estimating 30 seconds. What I'm looking for is
26
whether or not you're-
27
Q: I am not asking for your description-
28
147/433
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy-
Judge McElroy: Let him explain the question.
Mr. Coughlin: He is going to just describing the test in total and
that's not what I'm asking for.

Judge McElroy: I don't want any more questions in this area, you
5
6
need to wrap up your cross-examination.

Q: Have you received any commendations as an officer medals,
7
8
commendations, awards?
A: Yes.
ms.
Q: Can you describe those?
A: Well, let's see, I received a master award for shooting I've been
10
11
recognized by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers five times for my
12
expertise and taking drug and alcohol impaired drivers off the road.
13
Q: That's Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?
14
A: Correct.
15
Q: Is that like Officer of the Year?
16
A: No, it's actually not Officer of the Year, that would be separate
17
and I have not received Officer of the Year, if that is what you're asking
18
me.
19
20
21
22
Q: So, what have you received from Mothers Against Drunk

Drivers
A: an award for my efforts in removing alcohol and drug impaired
drivers from the roadway.
23
Q: Five times, awarded by MADD, for your work in DUI's?
24
A: Correct.
25
Q: So, it kind of sounds like you're a superstar DUI cop?
26
27
Judge McElroy: Argumentative and it is sustained.
28
148/433
Q: So, you have been recognized five times by MADD, is that
typical of officers? Or it that because you you've had a exemplary
record in giving out DUI's at a great rate?
Q: Is that typical for an officer to get recognized by MADD five
7
8
ms.
9
times?
A: I don't know if I can answer typical. There are several officers
that have been recognized more and there are several officers that have
been recognized less.
10
Q: So, the don't just recognize one a year?
11
A: No, for example this year there are 10 people from my station
12
that are getting an award.
13
Q: For this particular award or just any award?
14
A: This particular award.
15
Q: This Mothers Against Drunk Driving award?
16
A: Correct.
17
Q: And how many people are in your station that are eligible for
18
the award?
19
20
21
Q: Would you consider yourself to be someone who is a high-
22
performing officer when it comes to giving out DUI's?
23
24
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule it.
25
A: Again, it's a matter of perception. No, I just work hard and do
26
27
the job that they pay me to do.

Judge McElroy: So what's the next question?
28
149/433
Q: Would you say they're giving out the five Mothers Against
Drunk Driving commendations just because you work hard and you are
doing the job they pay you to do?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation.
Q: Can you go on about any awards you might have received?
A: I received five awards for vehicle theft recovery, numerous
8
ms.
9
10
written accommodations for anything from rescuing a guy that crashed

over a cliff, toQ: How about we just talk about awards related to DUI's in some
whatever tenuous way?
11
A: We've already covered that.
12
Q: Just the MADD, the five MADD recognitions in your 16 years.
13
Wasn't there something about 11 years?
14
15
Q: You have been an officer for 16 years, what have you been
16
17
18
something for 11 years?

A: I've been assigned to my current duties location for the last 11
years?
19
Q: And that's as a Northern?
20
A: I work for the my current assignment in North Sacramento
21
CHP Office.
22
Q: Now I notice when you say I swayed, and this is on your report
23
bates stamp page 8, swayed in all directions approximately two inches
24
from center, if someone who is 5 feet tall sways two inches is that
25
different from someone who's six-foot-four swaying two inches?
26
A: No, two inches is still two inches?
27
Q: Oh, is it?
28
150/433
Judge McElroy: Next question, argumentative.
Q: Because, I don't think it is.
Judge McElroy: Argumentative, next question.
Q: If someone is 5 feet tall and they sway two inches is the
percentage that they've swayed compared their their overall higher
than it would be for someone who's six-foot-four?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, asked and answered?
ms.
9
10

Q: And if the percentage is higher doesn't that mean they are
swaying more so for their body height?
11
Judge McElroy: Sustained, what's the next question?
12
Mr. Coughlin: That something might learn in college.
13
14
Q: How do you differentiate between someone who is seven feet
15
tall swaying and someone who is five feet tall swaying?
16
17
18
Q: What would be an acceptable distance for someone to sway,
19
what would be, someone who is clearly not intoxicated, how would they
20
sway?
21
22
23
24
A: Again, it's a totality of the circumstances. I mean, ideally, zero,

they would stand at attention.
Q: So we've got 30.00 seconds and swaying zero, its kind of like
very robotic, right? Is that how you would described yourself?
25
26
27
28
151/433
1
2
Q: So, in a circular way you've told me what would be good is to do

exactly what we are asking you to do, not sway at all.
Mr. Coughlin: I haven't finished my question, Susan.
Judge McElroy: What is your question?
Q: What would be something other than perfect, what would be
something that would fit in the range of this person is not getting
arrested for DUI imperfect?
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: I am going to allow one more question in this area

and no more questions in the swaying area
A: Again, it's based on the totality it's not based on just that test
which is why I give more than one.
Q: I'm sorry, Your Honor, he keeps doing that, he keeps going: its
the totality, he doesn't answer my question.
Judge McElroy: He doesn't give you the answer you want, so let's
move on to the next question.
Mr. Coughlin: Well any answer he's ever given has been totality,
totality-
18
Judge McElroy: And that's the way it is, what's the next question?
19
Mr. Coughlin: Because, he can't say.
20
Judge McElroy: You can't accept it.
21
Mr. Coughlin: You can't say because your whole thing is just
22
23
24
25
26
baloney.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I move to strike the rest of this
examination, is it a waste of time.
Judge McElroy: I am going to keep it on the record, okay? Move,
what's the next question?
27
28
152/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: So we're not going to get any idea of how much one
can sway?
Judge McElroy: I think I've heard ad nauseum.
Mr. Coughlin: I have heard totality of the circumstances, I haven't
5
6
7
8
heard anything about half an inch, an inch, can you at all?

Judge McElroy: Because its totality of the circumstances. What's
the next question?
Q: Can you describe what you mean by walking with floppy feet?
ms.
A: I can give you a brief description that may or may not make
sense to you. Have you ever seen someone walk with flippers on, like
10
they're gonna walk out and go diving?
11
Q: Yeah.
12
A: Like that.
13
Q: But if someone who doesn't have flippers on they could still
14
walk like that?
15
A. Sure.
16
Q: Floppy feet?
17
Judge McElroy: What's the next question.
18
Q: Is that kind of a personality type thing, you think? Walking
19
with floppy feet?
20
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance.
21
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him answer.
22
Q: Like dressing with a baseball cap or wearing a gold chain or
23
something?
24
Q: Objection, relevancy.
25
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and ask this one more
26
27
question.
A: Are you asking me if that's a personality trait?
28
153/433
Q: Yeah.
A: I don't know you well enough to form that opinion, so I couldn't
3
4
5
answer that.
Q: Okay, but it made it in your police report under whether or not
I had been drinking or driving, right?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, misstates what is in the police report.
Q: I'm asking him what was in it. She asked me what was in the
ms.
9
10
11
12
police reports over an over yesterday.

Judge McElroy: I sustained the objection. What's the next
question?
Q: So was it that floppy feet are indicative of someone having been
impaired?
13
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Oh, strike that.
14
Judge McElroy: Go ahead.
15
A: It can be.
16
Q: But it can also not be?
17
A: Again, it's based on the totality of the circumstances. It can be
18
and it could not be.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
20
A: That's not solely what I'm lookin' for.
21
Q: Okay, well, let's speed this up. Let's boil this down for me what
22
you are looking for. What's your top 5 hit list of why you think I was
23
impaired. Let's give us your five best shots.
24
A: I can sum it up in one shot.
25
Q: Not totality-of-the-circumstances. Let's get some real things
26
that you have to stand behind, Officer George.
27
28
154/433
Judge McElroy: Okay, Mr. Coughlin, please, behave. The question
is five indicators of why he felt he was under the influence of
marijuana that night.
A: Because based on my training experience.
Q: Five most important, I'm sorry.
Judge McElroy: Will you please let him explain it?
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor.
A: Your physical indicators, the psycho-physical tests.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Can we have specific indicators, not broad index of

a book type things.
10
11
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Coughlin, pretty soon I'm
12
gonna have you leave this courtroom if you don't behave. So, if you
13
could give the court what made you think that he was under the
14
influence of marijuana that night when you arrested him.
15
A: The physical indicators, which would be red and watery eyes,
16
dilated pupils that were slow to react to light stimulus, green coating
17
on the tongue, odor of freshly burnt marijuana about your person and
18
breath, your performance on the field sobriety tests.
19
Q: That's five.
20
A: That's what you asked for, right?
21
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah.
22
G: Okay.
23
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question about?
24
Mr. Coughlin: I want to talk about these, okay, I asked that
25
question for a reason. The first one, I believe, was he said my physical
26
characteristics?
27
A: Physical indicators.
28
155/433
Mr. Coughlin: Red watery eyes.
G: That was one.
Q: Can someone have read or watery eyes, say someone who works
at a law firm as a litigation associate first year he's looking at a
computer for 10 hours a day, would that give you read or watery eyes:
Ms. Kagan: objection, relevance.
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him go with that
8
ms.
9
10
question, go ahead.
A: It could. It can also be an indication of marijuana use.
Q: Okay but there's a lot, I mean, how many allergies can give you
red or watery eyes?
11
Judge McElroy: What is the next question.
12
Q: So, point one, is something that could be a lot of things, right?
13
Judge McElroy: Okay, so at this point, I am not going to continue?
14
Mr. Coughlin: One more question, please?
15
Judge McElroy: One more question that's it.
16
Q: Dilated eyes. Does taking back medication, would that dilate
17
your eyes?
18
A: No.
19
Q: It doesn't? Opiates don't dilate your eyes? And your are a drug
20
21
22
recognition expert? Okay, I rest. Great.

Ms. Kagan: Objection, allow the witness to answer the question,
Your Honor.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Please do, please do, I'd love to hear this.
24
A: Actually that's a narcotic which would constrict your eyes.
25
Judge McElroy: Next question.
26
Q: Right, so narcotics don't ever dilate your eyes?
27
28
156/433
A: Soma can dilate your eyes but that's not what you were taking.
You were taking Lortab.
Q: Do you mean by constrict that that would
make the black, the pupil's smaller?
A: Correct.
Q: Okay so point one was we had red watery eyes, point two was
6
7
8
ms.
9
you had dilated eyes.

Judge McElroy: You don't need to summarize the answer, you need
to ask the next question?
Q: Okay, point three is my question. Can you elucidate what
point three was?
10
A: Refresh me.
11
Q: I'm asking you.
12
Judge McElroy: He doesn't, he needs to be refreshed.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Well they were his is his arrest report.
14
Judge McElroy: I'm not gonna, you're not asking a proper
15
16
question at this point.

Q: Okay, so point three, I'm gonna say it was the floppy feet thing,
17
I don't know. I'm gonna say was the floppy feet thing, which could be
18
kinda like a personality thing maybe one of these hip hop people who
19
walk around with the floppy feet and their attitude like that.
20
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Is counsel testifying.
21
22
Q: Are all five of these things you said, could they all be described
23
by things other than intoxication? Could they be caused by things
24
intoxication?
25
A: Well, I'm sure from sittin' where you're sittin', yes.
26
Q: But not from where you are sitting? Red eyes can't be caused
27
by allergies? Other drugs can't dilate pupils?
28
157/433
A: Red eyes could be caused by a number of things.
Judge McElroy: You are being argumentative, let him explain his
4
5
answer.
A: Red eyes can be caused by a lot of things. Again, based on
everything was presented to me those are all indicators based on my
training experience that you had ingested marijuana recently and
we're under the influence.
ms.
9
Q: So all five of these thingsJudge McElroy: Okay, I am not allowing any more questions in
10
this area, this is, it's over with in terms of this area. So do you have any
11
of redirect?
12
Ms. Kagan: No, Your Honor.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Is there a reason why we didn't call Officer Escatel?
14
Judge McElroy: No, we don't need an explanation. She can put on
15
her case as she wishes. Okay, you may step down, thank you.
16
Ms. Kagan: I just want to check on my witness.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, is there a transcript being made?
18
Judge McElroy: No, you're gonna have to order a transcript.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but it is being recorded?
20
Judge McElroy: You are going to have to order the disk.
21
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, the state calls Mark Tratos.
22
(The oath was administered to Mark Tratos.)
23
Ms. Kagan: Good afternoon Professor Tratos?
24
T: You can call me Mark.
25
Q: Are you employed?
26
A: I am.
27
Q: Where are you employed?
28
158/433
1
2
A: I am the managing shareholder of the Las Vegas office of

Greenburg Traurig, we are a large international law firm.
Q: How long have you been at that position?
A: A couple of years.
Q: Where did you work before.
A: I had my own firm, Quirk and Tratos, which was an
intellectual property and entertainment boutique.
Q: And how long did you have that firm?
ms.
9
A: About 22 years.
Q: Are you a licensed lawyer in California?
10
A: California and Nevada.
11
Q: Where do you primarily practice?
12
A: Most of my time is spent in Nevada. I have had a lot of work in
13
California over the years but it is small fraction of what I doing.
14
Q: Do you have a specialty?
15
A: I do I'm an intellectual property and entertainment lawyer
16
with a special emphasis on internet law.
17
Q: Have you ever taught any classes in internet law?
18
A: Yes, I've been a regular faculty, adjunct faculty member for
19
UNLV's Boyd School of Law, where I teach cyberlaw, rights of
20
publicity, privacy, defamation law, and entertainment law.
21
Q: And how long have you been teaching those courses for UNLV.
22
A: I believe since the second year that UNLV was open I began
23
teaching there. I've also taught at Arizona State and I'm on the Boards
24
of Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland and Southwestern in Los
25
aAngeles and I am the vice chairman of the board of visitors for the
26
National Judicial College.
27
28
159/433
1
2
Q: You said that you had been teaching at UNLV law school since
the second year it opened?
A: I believe that's correct.
Q: And do you have an approximate date for that?
A: Again, I think we are in our seventh year, so six years ago,
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
something like that.

Q: At some point, did you teach a cyber law class at UNLV in the
summer 2001 with Mr. Coughlin in your class?
A: I believe he was. He was one of my students.
Q: And do you recall any contact with Mr. Coughlin regarding
that course.
A: Yes, he was a bright student in the classroom. I think that we
12
had a difficulty I think at the end of the class with a missing paper.
13
Q: I'd like to discuss the missing paper. Can you explain to me
14
15
what was the paper, was it an assignment that you gave?

A: It was part of the class grade, it accounted for forty percent of
16
the class grade and it was part of the way that we got people to
17
understand cyber law or internet law by actually having them
18
research in an area and write a paper on an approved topic.
19
Q: Do you recall when that paper was due for that class?
20
A: It was at the end of the semester, I think it was turned in at the
21
end of the semester. It was sometime in the July-August time frame.
22
Q: Were there any requirements for turning in the paper?
23
A: Yeah, I required that each of the students turn in the paper
24
both in a written printed form of physical paper and submitted
25
electronically as well.
26
27
Q: Did you explain to the class why you needed an electronic

form?
28
160/433
Q: Not necessarily, it was cyber law class, so expecting it to be
turned in in an electronic form would seem to make sense, but it was
also for my convenience so I could read it on my computer.
4
5
6
Q: Do you know whether or not Mr. Coughlin turned in that paper

at the end of the semester?
A: Mr. Coughlin believed he did. I had no record of it and we had a
series of discussions about that fact that I had neither the paper copy
nor the electronic copy and I couldn't give him a grade until I had the
ms.
9
10
11
the copy so I could grade it.

Q: Did you ever have Mr. Coughlin's paper in your possession that
you know of?
A: Well, I subsequently think September-October I got a six or
12
seven page paper from him which I don't think he represented as being
13
his original paper. I think it was something that he was able to
14
retrieve some time later on. He indicated to me that he had a problem
15
with his computer, his computer crashed or something, and he was
16
unable to retrieve the paper.
17
18
Q: But did you ever have his the final paper that he turned in, not
the draft, in your possession?
19
A: Not that I am aware of, ever.
20
Q: When did you realize that you didn't have that paper?
21
A: I think I realized that I didn't have it when I was grading the
22
remainder of the papers. I had graded papers, it was not one of the
23
papers in my paper pile, therefore, I gave him an incomplete. I think
24
that's how it came up.
25
26
27
Q: Was there any other papers that you didn't receive from
students in that class?
A: No, that was the only paper I didn't receive.
28
161/433
Q: Professor Tratos, I'd like you to turn to Exhibit Five in the
1
2
binder. Do you recognize Exhibit Five?
A: Well, I recognize my scribbles on the bottom of the page.
Q: That is your handwriting on Exhibit Five?
A: Yeah, that is my handwriting.
Q: What about page one? Is this something you recognize as an
email from Zachary Coughlin?

A: Yeah, I believe this is an email Zach sent me after not actually
8
ms.
having been able to locate his paper.

Q: At Page 8 of the exhibit, do you recognize, page 8?
A: Page 8 of the exhibit just says: Zach, please send me another
10
11
copy of your paper?
12
Q: Yes. And how do you recognize this?
13
A: Because I remember doing that, I remember asking for another
14
copy of the paper to be sent.

Q: Is this the first contact that you had with Mr. Coughlin
15
16
regarding the paper that you recall?

A: I don't know if it was the first but it was very early on in it
17
18
because he believed he had sent it but we could not locate it so we asked
19
him to send us another copy.

Q: Is there a reason that you use the word another copy in that
20
21
email?
A: Well, sure he indicated to us he had prepared it. We take our
22
23
student's representations at face value. I had no reason to doubt it, so I
24
assumed he had another copy and asked if he could send me another
25
one.
26
27
Q: Now, Professor, at some point did you alert the law school Dean
about Mr. Coughlin's behavior in this, regarding the paper?
28
162/433
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I'm sorry-
Judge McElroy: What is your legal objection?
Mr. Coughlin: Could I use the restroom?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry your honor I'm having some bladder
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
problem.
Judge McElroy: I understand. Why don't we take a five-minute
break.
Judge McElroy: The record resuming with this direct of Mr.
Tratos.
Q: Professor, I believe my last question to you was at some point
11
did you refer this matter with Mr. Coughlin to the Dean of the law
12
school?
13
A: After some weeks, I did, yes.
14
Q: And what was the basis for that?
15
A: I was concerned about the matter escalating. Mr. Coughlin had
16
indicated he couldn't get the paper back to me because of some injury to
17
his LAPtop, so I offered to pay for having his hard. As an internet and
18
computer firm we had access to people who could do those kind of
19
things and so we offered to help him retrieve the paper if that would
20
help. Somehow the communications got a little more agitated, and I
21
thought it was something that probably I needed some guidance from
22
the Dean on as to how I should handle it so I contacted the Dean to try
23
to get a handle on it.
24
25
26
27
A: When you just testified about things getting agitated, can you
go into a little more detail about that.
Q: Well, I understood that I had a student that was frustrated
that he was not getting a grade because I was not giving him a grade,
28
163/433
and I appreciated his concern about that, at the same time I needed to
have the paper so that I can grade it. Because he hadn't sent me an
electronic version and I didn't have a paper version of the paper I had
asked him to send me another copy electronically so that I could at
least examine it. When he was unable to produce that then it made me
concerned as to whether or not the paper had in fact existed and as we,
you know went back and forth in this exchange of emails I simply
reminded him that in the class we requested that he send both with
ms.
9
paper and electronic and then I haven't received either, and even if he
had turned in the paper, when I didn't have the electronic one. And,
10
therefore we needed it. Essentially, when the hard drive problem
11
apparently materialized that was a problem with his computer so we
12
couldn't get it, it put me in an awkward spot of not knowing what to do
13
for him and that's why I think he got frustrated and I certainly was
14
frustrated.
15
Q: Can you turn to page 9 of the exhibits.
16
A: Okay.
17
Q: Bates stamp page 9 through 15 of Exhibit Five.
18
A: Okay, page nine?
19
Q: Yes.
20
A: Yes, I did.
21
Q: And, how did you recognize that?
22
A: In September, Zach sent me an email and attached a copy of a
23
document which he thought was a very rough draft, expressed it as a
24
very rough draft of the article that he said he had drafted or written
25
and that's what I see in this exhibit and I guess it is page 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
26
and going to page 15.
27
28
164/433
1
2
Q: Did you use that draft that Mr. Coughlin provided to issue a
grade for the paper in the class?
A: I did.
Q: What was your impression of the draft that Mr. Coughlin
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
turned in.
A: Assuming at face value it was the original early draft, rough
draft and not the final paper it was a good initial draft.
Q: Was there any language in the draft that you recall that you
found to be out of place for a paper for law school?
A: Well, it was, it had some colorful language in it, on page 14,
10
let's get pissy over the meaning of revision I thought was probably
11
not the kind of scholarly-
12
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
13
Judge McElroy: I'm going to allow one or two questions in the
14
area. So, its overruled.
15
Ms. Kagan: You can finish answering the question.
16
A: I assumed it was a misguided effort to be humorous.
17
Q: I would like you turn to page 21, bate stamp page 21 of the
18
19
exhibit, Professor. Do you recognize this page?

A: I don't really recall this, this was apparently something it was
20
actually sent to my assistant Catherine Luce at the time. I don't have a
21
good recollection of this one I do recall he did send me something
22
directly , and maybe it's the next page. Yeah, I recognize the next page.
23
24
Q: Was this something that either you or your assistant

forwarded to the Dean of the law school?
25
A: I think, yeah.
26
Q: And, can you explain why this email was forwarded?
27
28
165/433
A: Zach's communication with me was very inconsistent. It tended
to be extreme highs extreme lows in terms of the level of emotional
response.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, your honor, relevancy.
A: He was very apologetic in some of these correspondence and not
7
8
ms.
so in others.
Q: How would you describe the content of the emails that Mr.
Coughlin sent to you regarding the situation?
A: They were the most unusual communications.
10
11
12
A: The were the most unusual communications I received from
13
any law student or any student at any institution that I taught at ever.
14
They were just different.
15
Q: Can you describe what you mean by that?
16
17
18
A: Zach's a very articulate but somewhat erratic and troubling, I
19
mean that that they were just the kind of communication that I don't
20
think any professor would be comfortable in getting?
21
Q: Did they caused you any concern?
22
A: Well, they only caused me concern in that he was conducting
23
himself in a fashion that I thought was of concern, not that I was
24
personally feeling bad or threatened or anything of that nature, just
25
that the conduct was unusual.
26
27
Q: Now you testified earlier that you referred this matter to the
Dean of the law school, correct?
28
166/433
A: I asked the Dean how I should handle a missing paper having
never had the situation before. What would I do with this, how would I
approach it, what should I do in terms of granting a grade, or not
granting a grade, because he expressed in his communication me I was
holding up his graduation and his ability to become a lawyer. And,
obviously that's a very serious matter, it's something that would
concern any faculty member to to think that that was what was
happening and so I went to the people who essentially could give me
ms.
directions on how I can best respond, which was the administration.
Q: Are you aware that the administration opened up an academic
10
dishonesty investigation against Mr. Coughlin related to the emails or
11
the class that he attended with you?
12
13
14
15
A: I am aware, I'm aware that they had already had a file on Mr.
Coughlin and theyMr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, he is not answering the
question. Relevancy.
16
17
Ms. Kagan: I am sorry I didn't hear the rest of your answer.
18
19
20
21
22
A: I was told that they had already begun a file on Mr. Coughlin
on other matters and they would add this to it.
Q: Did you ever advised Mr. Coughlin why you were asking for
another copy of, or a copy of his final draft?
A: Sure, because in most instances that I've experienced in
23
academic life, when we invest a great deal of time, energy, or effort on a
24
paper we keep a copy of it. We keep materials because it's something
25
that might be useful to us later on. So, it was standard practice to, if,
26
even if, you know copy is damaged or somebody spills coffee on it or
27
something and you want to be able to read a nice legible one, it's not
28
167/433
uncommon to ask for a second copy. In this instance, the course had
required an electronic copy and a paper copy, so asking for an
additional copy, I thought, was fairly customary, and I was somewhat
surprised that he couldn't produce one.
Judge McElroy: Any questions at this time?
Mr. Coughlin: Sure.
Judge McElroy: Remember to precede by question.
Q: Yes, Your Honor. Mark, can you tell me how did you make this
ms.
9
10
request for this digital copy to the class?

A: I believe it was both in the syllabus, class syllabus and orally
to the class.
11
Q: Okay, because we do have a copy of the class syllabus, don't we?
12
A: I think so, I don't know.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Because I didn't seen it in there.
14
Ms. Kagan: Objection, vague.
15
Judge McElroy: Let's proceed by question.
16
Q: Would it surprise you to know that's not in the syllabus?
17
A: It wouldn't surprise me because I recall clearly standing in
18
front of the classroom saying let's make sure that you get me an
19
electronic version as well so that I can take it with my computer if I go
20
on vacation.
21
22
Q: Okay, so when you were making the syllabus, did you know
that you were going on vacation?
23
A: I don't know that I did or didn't.
24
Q: So you maybe didn't put the thing about the digital because you
25
didn't know your were going on vacation?
26
A: That is possible, yes.
27
Q: Okay, but just earlier you said it was in the syllabus?
28
168/433
Judge McElroy: Okay, I am going to overrule the objection let him
3
4
5
explain.
A: I believe it was likely to be in the syllabus. If it's not in the
syllabus, I know I expressed it in class.
Judge McElroy: So, what's the next question?
Q: So, since its not in the syllabus, the only way somebody in the
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
class would know that you wanted this digital copy is that you
expressed it in class.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and overrule the objection,
go ahead.
Q: Can you tell us how, did you make this announcement at the
beginning or end of the class? Was it, did you know?
A: Zach, my policy typically is as we're getting ready to get papers
15
turned in, I'm mentioning it several times during each of the class
16
sessions to remind people because it's a fine deadline and I have a
17
limited amount of time to grade, and so it comes up a couple times a
18
week in class.
19
Q: What is it?
20
A: Reminders about the paper come up several times.
21
Q: I asked you about the digital copy and when you announced the
22
digital copies is requirement-
23
24
Judge McElroy: Why don't I overrule the objection and go ahead
25
and let you answer?
26
27
28
169/433
A: As I recall, Zach, it would have been several times during the
semester and as the paper came to the time it was due, I would have
said it repeatedly in the classroom.
Q: Said what?
A: Said, remember your papers are due. Remember I need both a
6
7
8
ms.
9
hard copy and a digital copy.

Q: That's what I'm just focused on, just on the hard copy, I don't
need to know when you're saying papers were due. Okay, you said
several times throughout the semester you would have said: Class, I
need a digital copy and a hard copy of this paper. You're saying that.
10
Okay, so at what point in this semester, so several times throughout the
11
semester, at what point did you schedule your vacation which would
12
have necessitated this hard copy? Was this earlier on in the semester?
13
14
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him ask this
15
question because its-
16
A: Zach, the-
17
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Mark.
18
A: The norm was to have had the paper copy, not the digital copy.
19
What was unusual here was that I was asking also for the digital copy-
20
Mr. Coughlin: So it was unusual, okay.
21
A: I was asking for both-
22
Q: At what point in the semester did you decide you're going on
23
vacation and thus,
24
A: I don't recall-
25
Q: Because that was the whole point, right, as you said, in asking
26
27
for a digital copy, right?

A: That's one of the reasons-
28
170/433
Q: Because you couldn't have announced to the class prior to to
knowing you were going to go on vacation. You wouldn't have said,
you know, I might-
Judge McElroy: Wait, let's ask a question, no narrative.
Q: So, at what point did you decide you were going on vacation?
A: Zach, I don't recall when I decided to go on vacation.
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him answer. Okay,
ms.
9
10
11

Q: You don't recall when you were going to go on vacation?
A: I don't recall when I decided I was going on vacation. That was
your question.
12
Q: Do you recall where you were going to vacation?
13
A: I was going to California. San Diego.
14
Q: To California? And did you bring a LAPtop with student's
15
papers loaded onto it for grading?
16
A: I did.
17
Q: You did. So, it was at some point in the semester that you knew,
18
okay I'm going to go to- and how long did you go to California for?
19
A: I think I was there for five days.
20
Q: And this would have been around when?
21
A: Some time in September-October of 2001.
22
Q: Okay, so class ended in July and you're going to bring your- and
23
grades are due on September 5th, right? That means the grades are-
24
Ms. Kagan: Objection, that is not in evidence.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, here is-
26
Mr. Coughlin: That can be judicially noticed, Your Honor.
27
Judge McElroy: No, it's not going to be judicially noticed.
28
171/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: If there's a long-standing rule that grades are

needing to be due 45 days after class ends.
Judge McElroy: Judicially noticed is completely different, okay?
Mr. Coughlin: I didn't go to a top tier law school. I went to UNLV,
5
6
okay?
T: Its a top 100 law school.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, here's the problem, the State Bar is
ms.
9
asserting that you misrepresented the outcome of the academic

dishonesty investigation and the evidence supporting that position. At
10
this point it's not really relevant in terms of you know where he spent
11
his vacation and what he spent his vacation, it's whether you
12
misrepresented the outcome, so I would suggest that you focus on the
13
outcome.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I'm just trying to understand, Your Honor,
15
why Mr. Tratos would be loading papers onto a, to grade 5 days after
16
grades were supposed to be due.
17
Judge McElroy: That is not the issue. So, its irrelevant.
18
Mr. Coughlin: It goes to whether he even knows where anything
19
20
is, or if he's 45 days late to grade something.

Judge McElroy: But that is not the issue in this case. It's what
21
you represented to the California State Bar regarding the outcome of
22
all this.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Right, and a central issue in this is whether he
24
announced to the class a digital copy was due. Somehow we made that a
25
central issue, like that is a big deal.
26
Judge McElroy: That this is not the issue, okay?
27
28
172/433
Q: So at some point in the semester, you decided I'm going to- this
1
2
is the semester that ended July 15-
Judge McElroy: The point is?
Q: I'm asking, I want to ask the question-
Judge McElroy: What is the question?
Q: At some point in the semester that end of July 15, this is got to
be a couple months beforehand, right? You said, you know what? I'm
going to sometime in September-October I'm gonna go to San Diego so I
ms.
9
10
need to load these papers on my LAPtop, so I'm going to announce this

to the class sometime in like what? Like July, that you might go on a
trip in September?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy
12
13
Q: I am asking you if that's what happened?
14
A: Its not, Zach
15
Q: Okay, please explain to me, Mark.
16
A: The class is going on, as the papers get near I remind the class
17
several times that the papers are due. It's gonna be forty percent of the
18
grades. I want them in both paper form and in digital form. The
19
interesting thing here is, the paper form was never turned in, and that's
20
the point we were trying to make.

Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, the paper form was turned
21
22
in.
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: No, I am sorry, go ahead, finish answering the
25
question.
26
Judge McElroy: Object to someone's answer.
27
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I'll ask the question again.
28
173/433
Judge McElroy: I don't want to hear that. He was explaining his
1
2
answer. I think you're you really don't understand what the point of
this hearing is and I think you're not getting it. The point is is that you
misr- it is alleged that you misrepresented in the application that it
was completely resolved in your favor. You need to focus on that issue
as opposed to attacking Professor Tratos. It's not helping your case.
Mr. Coughlin:Okay.
Judge McElroy: It's clear there was some misunderstanding.

Q: Mark, did you have a student in the class who worked for you?
ms.
A: I probably did.
Q: You don't remember, though? A gentleman named Don who was
10
11
a summer associate for you was in the cyber law class?
12
A: Don Prunty is still working for me.
13
Q: He is still with you? And was he in that class?
14
A: I believe he was.
15
16
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him explore.
17
Q: He got an A in that class, didn't he?
18
A: He was one of several people who did.
19
Q: There was only a couple people that got an A, right?
20
A: I believe there were several.
21
Q: How many is several?
22
23
24
Q: His employee was one of a couple people who got an A in this
25
26
27
class.
Judge McElroy: Remember the issues is your misrepresentation
about the outcome.
28
174/433
Mr. Coughlin: Right, well but this goes this goes to why my name
1
2
wasn't on the paper, Your Honor. Why I put my social security number
on the paper because he's got an- one, that is what we did in every class,
it was blind grading, and two, if he has an employee in the class-
M. Mr. Coughlin, this is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Coughlin: No, it goes to whether or not this paper was turned
in, Your Honor, and that is relevant.
any difference whether the paper was turned in.
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: It doesn't make
Mr. Coughlin: It doesn't?

Judge McElroy: Not in terms of this hearing.
Mr. Coughlin: What does? So it doesn't matter whether- let's say I
11
did turn this paper and let's just let's just go ahead and assume that-
12
that doesn't matter? That doesn't? Is that what you are saying?
13
14
15
16
Judge McElroy: The outcome of the academic dishonesty

investigation and what you reported as the outcome.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so whether or not I did this is irrelevant,
right?
17
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what's your next question?
18
Mr. Coughlin: Because I'm just confused, because we say: well if it
19
is the outcome that matters, then why did we go into the arrest? You
20
know, because we could have just looked at the outcome and you say:
21
okay, we got a dry reckless, you reported it-boom, you're done. But
22
instead we spent four hours on the arrest.
23
Judge McElroy: You reported-
24
Mr. Coughlin: Now, if the outcome is the only thing that matters,
25
26
27
why are we looking at theJudge McElroy: You reported that the investigation was resolved
completely in your favor. That's the alleged misrepresentation.
28
175/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, I don't know where- uh,

nevermind.
Judge McElroy: Okay, let's ask the next question.
Q: Mark, did I get a passing score in this class?
A: I believe you got a D in the the class.
Q: Okay, is that a passing score?
A: I believe it is a passing score.
Q: Okay do you know whether or not I'd ever received another D
ms.
9
from any professor?

10
11
Q: So, I passed the course. Would you usually pass people who
12
have committed academic dishonesty?
13
14
15
Q: Would you pass someone who had committed academic
16
dishonesty?
17
18
A: If, I was aware of it, no.
19
Q: If you're aware of it, no you wouldn't. Okay. Why did you pass
20
me in this course?
21
A: I'm not the person who sits and judge.
22
Q: You don't give the grade, the pass/fail grade? Because that's a
23
24
25
new one to me. I thought the professor did give the grade.
Judge McElroy: The question is: why did he pass you? If you will
allow him to answer the question.
26
27
A: Zach-
28
176/433
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Mark.
A: I took at face value your representations that-
Mr. Coughlin: And I have some questions about that-
T: Go ahead-
Judge McElroy: Please, don't interrupt.
A: I took at face value your representations that even though you
had written your paper on a computer, and even though your computer
was still available to you, and even though I had offered to pay to have
ms.
9
the paper retrieved from your computerQ: The one file, not the whole?
10
Judge McElroy: Please, do not interrupt, okay?
11
A: You were unwilling to do that for some reason. I took that at
12
face value had nothing to do with the fact that the computer itself
13
might not have contained it. I took at face value you're submitting
14
materials to me and I graded the material you submitted to me. I
15
thought it was highly unlikely to be-
16
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, objection, Your Honor, relevancy. The
17
question was why did you pass me, right?
18
an explanation, please, continue with your explanation.
19
Judge McElroy: He's giving
A: I took your representations to me at face value. I gave you a
20
grade in the class. I doubted sincerely your explanation, but I did not
21
sit as a judge.
22
Q: Is that your answer?
23
A: I think that's my answer.
24
Q: For why you passed me in this course? I did not set as a
25
26
judge? That is your answer?

A: That's my answer.
27
28
177/433
1
2
Q: Is that all one needs to do is not have you sit as a judge to pass
your course?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it, so, let's move on to the next
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
question.
Q: You passed me. So, I pass the course, right? If I would have
been guilty of academic dishonesty could have I passed the course?
A: I wasn't involved in evaluating whether you were engaged in
academic dishonesty. I turned that matter over to the law school.
Q: Okay, but you passed me, right? So, if the law school- somebody,
at some point, they wouldn't have passed me if I was guilty, right?
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Can I ask that to Professor Tratos? I mean, he has
14
15
16
been a professor for many years.

Judge McElroy: I am going to let you ask that question. One more
question in this area.
17
T: Is there a question?
18
Mr. Coughlin: So, I can't ask that question?
19
Judge McElroy: Go ahead and ask the question, although the fact
20
21
of it is is that youQ: All right, there's more interesting stuff to get to here. Whether
22
Mr. Tratos can tell me why I passed or not, we will move on from.
23
Mark, did you feel threatened by me during this?
24
A: Threatened by you?
25
Q: Yeah, threatened?
26
A: Threatened? Physically? No.
27
Q: You didn't feel physically threatened?
28
178/433
A: No.
Q: Okay, did you feel threatened in any way?
A: Certainly.
Q: How so?
A: You have a line in one of the emails, early emails that you sent
to me, which suggested to me that you were-
Mr. Coughlin: Okay-
Judge McElroy: Let him finish. You asked it.
ms.
9
10

Judge McElroy: You are getting far afield, but it's not helping
your case.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but I promise this is going somewhere.
12
13
A: Which you were suggesting that we were going to have to go
14
through an entire chain of custody investigation on the physical
15
papers.
16
Q: Similar to what we're doing right now?
17
A: I don't know.
18
Q: So that made you feel threatened?
19
A: Why did you have something to hide?
20
21
Judge McElroy: Sustained. What is the next question.
22
Q: Mark, I noticed earlier today, you said: I was doing this
23
because I was concerned, not because I was threatened. You said that
24
earlier today.
25
26
27
28
179/433
Q: My question is why, earlier today, on the stand, did you say you
weren't threatened, and then now you're saying you were threatened,
and then in another email here you said: I just got your threatening
email.
A: I don't think I ever said I just got your threatening email.
Q: Well, let me go back to your email where you say: I got your
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
threatening email, Mr. Coughlin.

A: No, read it carefully, sir.
Mr. Coughlin: I will try with my UNLV education, I'll try to read
it carefullyJudge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you are only making your case
worse.
12
Mr. Coughlin: your exhibit is number 5, bates stamp page seven,
13
from Mark Tratos: I just received your somewhat threatening email
14
and was surprised by its tone and content.
15
16
Q: How does that relate to your statement earlier today that I
17
18
19
wasn't threatened?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I will let you ask that question one more
time, let's put it on the record.
20
A: I guess-
21
Q: Do you remember saying that earlier today?
22
Judge McElroy: Will you let him answer?
23
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just trying to clarify we know what we're
24
25
26
talking about.
A: Zach, yes, and I've made a distinction between being physically
threatened and being threatened, and there is two different states.
27
28
180/433
One is fear or apprehension of physical harm and one is someone is
accusing you of some kind of misconduct. Different animals altogether.
3
4
Q: So when you accuse someone of some kind of misconduct, are

they supposed to feel threatened?
Judge McElroy: Sustained. What's the next question?
Q: Well, you're describing what makes you feel threatened is
when someone accuses you of some kind of misconduct, right?
ms.
A: That is one of the things that can make someone feel
threatened.
10
Q: And you accused me of some kind of misconduct, right?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, misstates the testimony.
12
Q: And yet, you're the one who's feeling threatened?
13
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Sustained.
14
Q: Is there a double standard there, Mark?
15
Judge McElroy: Let's ask- its sustained, let's ask another question.
16
Q: The rules don't really apply to you, right?
17
18
Q: You don't need to treat other people as you would want to be
19
treated, right? Because, you are Mark Tratos, right?
20
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Sustained.
21
A: Zach, I've always tried to treat you courteously.
22
Q: Right. Right. Can you tell me, what's the first time you
23
communicated to me: I need another copy of your paper or that you
24
had lost my paper?
25
26
Q: Or that you had thrown my paper away.
27
28
181/433
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let you ask the question.
Can you tell him the first time, if you can recall.
A: I believe I completed grading everybody's papers, had come to
the conclusion that yours was not in the group, and wrote you an email
asking for another copy of your paper.
Q: Would it be this email, page 8, Exhibit 5, where you say: Zach,
please send me another copy of your paper? This is the first
correspondence after class had ended between yourself and me, right?
ms.
9
A: I believe that may be it.

Q: Okay, so send me another- but earlier you said, when Susan
10
said: why did you 'say send me another copy of your paper', you said:
11
why I had not sat and judged.
12
Ms. Kagan: Objection, mischaracterized the testimony.
13
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I have somewhere good to go with this.
15
Judge McElroy: No. I am going to sustain the objection
16
Mr. Coughlin: But, earlier he said: I took him at value. If I
17
hadn't even represented to you up to this point that I had given it to
18
you, then why would you say another? Because I had never said I had
19
given you anything up to this point.
20
Judge McElroy: I am going to take a recess, at this point, okay,
21
and I need to talk to the applicant.
22
Can we take a five-minute break?
23
Court Personnel: Certainly.
24
Judge McElroy: Okay, you could step down.
25
T: Thank you.
26
Mr. Coughlin: What would you suggest, Judge? Do you have a
27
recommendation?
28
182/433
Judge McElroy: No, it's totally up to you, but-
Court Personnel: We are back on record.
Judge McElroy: We're back on the record and the court has taken
a five minute break to talk to the applicant regarding issues of how to
conduct himself in court. When I sustain an objection that means that
you cannot ask the question again the next time, number one. Number
two, the issue in this case is not whether in fact there was a paper that
existed or that the professor had the paper and that's not the issue. The
ms.
9
issue is your representation to the State Bar about what was the
outcome of that investigation. You are not helping yourself to argue
10
with this professor about the actual paper. You- the State Bar has
11
alleged that you said it was completely resolved in your favor- there's
12
some information that they're saying it wasn't resolved, that there was
13
a formal letter of warning. That's really the issue, not all this other
14
arguments that you are getting into. You would do best to let him go,
15
frankly, it has nothing to really do with this?
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: If part of this investigation is whether or not this

guy was threatened?
18
Judge McElroy: Its not. That was never an issue, you opened it up.
19
Mr. Coughlin: In the investigation? About whether or not I
20
received a letter of warning about? What was I warned about?
21
Judge McElroy: You were warned about your behavior.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Specifically? Was it about turning a paper in, or
23
24
was it about threatening somebody or what was it about?

Judge McElroy: You had characterized what you had received as
25
resolved completely in your favor. The State Bar present something
26
that says it was a formal warning letter.
27
28
183/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: I said it was resolved but there was this thing
where I had to pay a hundred dollars, right?
Judge McElroy: This is completely unrelated.
Mr. Coughlin: They are in the same letter. The same exhibit deals
5
6
with both incidences, the exhibit where she's sayingJudge McElroy: All I'm trying to tell you is this it is not helpful
for you to go into the details of whether there was a paper or not, how
he regarded-
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, there is just a couple more questions. And I

know. I get where you're going. This stuff is not what's at issue, okay,
10
so I'm not gonna take a lot more time. A little more time with Mr.
11
Tratos.
12
13
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, so let's have Mr. Tratos come back in and
conduct yourself properly.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, for the sake of this trial, if we could
15
just take a second, if that is the issue, the how I characterized this
16
investigation, and their whole evidence consists of this one piece of
17
paper where the guy says: this is an informal letter of warning or he
18
says: it's a formal letter of warning in an informal letter. Okay, so
19
then we really need to focus on that stuff, right? Because that's
20
confusing, right?
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: And that has nothing to do with Mr. Professor

Tratos?
Mr. Coughlin: But who are they saying I threatened if it wasn't
24
Mr. Tratos? That's what I don't- if we could just look at exhibit
25
whatever it is that's his Formal Letter.
26
Judge McElroy: What exhibit is it?
27
Ms. Kagan: I want to stay off the top of my head it is 57.
28
184/433
Judge McElroy: Yeah.
Ms. Kagan: But, I am not entirely sure.
Judge McElroy: I think it is 53 or 57.
Mr. Coughlin: Yep, 53.
Ms. Kagan: 53, I apologize.
Judge McElroy: Okay, if you are found responsible for similar
violations of the Student Code your status as at UNLV will be
reconsidered.
Mr. Coughlin: I don't see anything about the academic dishonesty
ms.
9
here? How am I supposed to know what's what? Because here they're
10
talking about assaulting, striking, or threatening. I thought this was
11
about and email and a paper?

Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, Mr. Coughlin is not under oath right
12
13
now.
Judge McElroy: You are arguing your case. Right. That is. The
14
15
point isMr. Coughlin: I'm trying to help this case find out where it needs
16
17
18
to goJudge McElroy: You're not helping it, your widening it.

Mr. Coughlin: I won't. I won't argue my case. But if this paper is-
19
20
If the nexus is as you said, if the key inquiries is as you say, how I
21
reported the resolution of this academic dishonesty investigation, and
22
this is their star witness in that, and what they're coming with, the
23
other thing they are coming with his my statements in my application
24
which say: okay, yeah I had to pay $100 for moving this computer, and
25
other-
26
27
28
185/433
Judge McElroy: What you have done is made it much broader
than it ever was. Their argument is that you misrepresented, they
showed exhibit 53, that's it.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, well if you can explain to me what Exhibit
53 is talking about, maybe I could understand, but I don't know if
they're talking about Mark Tratos, I don't know who they're talking
about threatening. I don't know if they're talking about a paper thing,
or, or what, you know?
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: All I'm saying is you needMr. Coughlin: If you can tell me, if I'm acting stupid on purpose,
tell me.
11
Judge McElroy: I'm not saying you're acting stupid.
12
Mr. Coughlin: If you can read this and tell me, great, but I can't
13
understand what they're saying, you know, because I don't think they
14
really know what they're saying, I don't think-
15
16
17
18
19
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin is not under oath right now, he is

basically making a closing argument.
Mr. Coughlin: I am counsel right now, Susan. I am not a witness
right now. I am opposing counsel, and we are talking about this case.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so why don't we call Professor Tratos back
20
in and proceed with cross-exam. I've told you what the issues are and
21
you need to confine yourself to the issues and not widen this case.
22
23
Judge McElroy: As I see it that's exactly what you're doing. Okay,
24
resuming with the cross-examination of Professor Tratos.
25
Q: Mark, have you ever lost another student's paper?
26
A: No, Zach, I haven't.
27
Ms. Kagan: Objection, uh, mischaracterization-
28
186/433
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead, it stands. He says he has
1
2
hasn't. What's the next question?

Q: Would it surprise you that some of your former associates have
3
4
told me that you had lost other people's papers in the past.
A: It would surprise me.
Q: It would surprise you?
Judge McElroy: Okay, what's the next question? No editorializing.
Q: So, you're saying there's never been an incident while you were
ms.
9
teaching either at the law school or as a professor at UNLV's undergrad

or some other grad program where someone's paper or someone's take
10
home test or whatever came up missing. Think hard, Mark, think hard
11
because I want you to know.
12
13
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him ask it one more
14
time.
15
Q: Be sure that nobody who used to work for you knows about this.
16
Judge McElroy: And no editorializing.
17
Q: Make sure that never happened because you don't want to
18
commit perjury.
19
20
Judge McElroy: The question is, has it happened before?
21
A: Zach, I don't recall any paper having turned up missing. I do
22
recall that someone's take-home exam at some point at an
23
undergraduate level didn't arrive?
24
Q: Didn't arrive?
25
A: Right.
26
Q: And did the student say: No, I did turn that in?
27
28
187/433
Q: This has happened before. Okay, so that happened before and
then-
Judge McElroy: Okay, wait. What happened before?
Mr. Coughlin: One of his former associates has told me that he has
lost other people's papers before.

Judge McElroy: That's hearsay and it's editorializing.
ms.
Mr. Coughlin: But he just admitted to losing a take-home test.
9
10
Ms. Kagan: Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony.
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: That's what you do, right?
13
Judge McElroy: Okay, what's the question?
14
Q: So, someone's take home test turned up missing before?
15
A: I have a recollection that someone did not have a take-home
16
test turned in. Not at law school, at an undergraduate class and I
17
believe it was more than a decade ago.

Q: Did they just die? Or, how did, I mean-
18
19
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Sustained. No more questions in this
20
21
area.
22
Q: Can you tell me who Jessica Wolfe is?
23
A: I can't.
24
Q: Okay, because in your initial-
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, he said he can't. So what is the next
26
question.
27
28
188/433
Q: This is my next question. In your initial email to UNLV
requesting my email address to talk about this missing paper, you also
ask for Ms. Wolfe's email address to talk about her missing paper-
4
5
6
Ms. Kagan: Objection, um, can counselor point to what he's

referencing?
Mr. Coughlin: It was in the materials you showed me, and it was
in the materials I had. You cleverly omitted it from what you're
showing the court-
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: What are you referencing?

Mr. Coughlin: But you saw it too.
10
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, ask the next question.
11
Q: Do you recall not having Jessica Wolfe's paper for this very
12
13
14
same class?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, the witness has already answered this
question.
15
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and him ask this question.
16
A: I don't.
17
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question? He doesn't
18
19
recall.
Mr. Coughlin: I'd like to take judicial notice that within the file
20
for UNLV on this matter there is a paper that says please give me
21
Jessica Wolfe and Zach Coughlin's-
22
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: I don't take judicial notice. That isn't what

judicial notice is.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, at some point I can present that to you if
you'd like to see it. You too, Mark, to jog your recollection a little bit.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you need to present your own case.
What is the next question?
28
189/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
Q: So, Mark, were you involved at all in this investigation,

because itJudge McElroy: Okay, just ask were you involved in the
investigation?
A: No, I wasn't.
Judge McElroy: Okay, what is the next question?
Q: Can you tell me does that bother you not to be involved in an
investigation when you brought it?
A: I didn't bring it. I turned over my electronic communications
that I received from you.
10
Q: That wasn't bringing it, right?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, argumentative.
12
A: Correct.
13
Judge McElroy: Okay, what is the next question?
14
Q: But, they never asked you, well, I mean, in order to investigate
15
an academic dishonesty investigation that's in conjunction, at least,
16
with your class, wouldn't they need to communicate with you a little
17
bit to do a thorough investigation?
18
19
Judge McElroy: Sustained. What's the next question.
20
Q: But they didn't communicate with you at all, right?
21
A: Not right.
22
Q: I don't understand. Did they communicate with you about this
23
investigation or not?
24
A: They asked me to give them all of the materials in my files.
25
26
Q: And did you discuss any other communications we had?
27
A: What other communications we had?
28
190/433
1
2
3
4
Q: I don't know. Did we have other communications or were they

all in these emails?
A: I believe the only communications that we had were in fact
either in the emails or subsequently you called me telephonically.
Q: When was that?
A: You called me some months, many months later told me went
through a 12-step program and apologized for your conduct.
Q: Was many months later? Was it years later?
ms.
9
A: May have been years later.

Q: Was it, okay-
10
Judge McElroy: So what's the next question?
11
Q: So, that call really didn't have much to do with, like, you know,
12
you couldn't have turned that over to them, and I object to your
13
characterization of that call because it is inaccurate.
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, next question.
15
Q: So, just to make sure- so after you turn in these emails which,
16
from what I guess you said is that was our only contact was these
17
emails, the only thing that could have been threatening, Mark. The
18
only thing, right, is these emails? Okay, so they turn those over, you
19
turn those over, and after that you didn't have any sort of involvement
20
with those who were doing this investigation?
21
22
23
A: Other than they're the same people that I deal with at the law
school on a relatively regular basis as I teach classes.
Q: I mean any involvement, any communications in conjunction
24
with this investigation that had anything remotely to do with this
25
investigation?
26
27
28
191/433
A: I am certain that at the time that I turned over the emails,
when I physically gave them the emails, I had a communication with
him at that time.
Q: And the the substance of that communication was?
A: Here are the emails and this is what happened.
Q: Okay, do you know what the results of that investigation were?
A: I don't.
Q: Okay, can you turn to Exhibit 53, please? But, at that time-
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Wait. Let him look at Exhibit 53, and no

editorializing just a question.
10
A: All right.
11
Q: Okay, can you tell me what the final resolution was of this
12
matter?
13
14
Q: This academic dishonesty investigation?
15
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him answer the
16
question if he knows.
17
A: I don't know. This document, I have never seen before.
18
Q: Can you describe to me what it says?
19
20
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule it.
21
A: It appears that you were put on a formal notice of warning and
22
that if you were found responsible for similar violation of the student
23
code that you would have your status reevaluated.
24
25
26
Q: Okay, can you tell me the phrase that says: it appears that
academic dishonesty did not occur. It says that, doesn't it?
A: Where are you looking, sir.
27
28
192/433
Q: I'm in the first paragraph under this code section, student
responsibilities, fourth line down: in addition it appears that academic
dishonesty did not occur
A: I see that.
Q: Okay, so it says that. So what was I put on warning of?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy and personal knowledge.
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer the
8
ms.
9
question.
A: I believe the issue was one of whether or not your conduct was
appropriate as we, you and I, communicated regarding the paper, and I
10
think what was disturbing to me was, what I'd raised the attention of
11
the University about, and that was that your conduct seemed to be
12
rather unusual in the way you handled yourself with respect to the
13
paper.
14
Q: Like being a communist or something?
15
16
17
Q: Like, we don't like your conduct so we are going to start an
18
academic dishonesty investigation We don't like your conduct, so we
19
are going to say academic dishonesty. Is that what happened, Mark.
20
Judge McElroy: Sustained, let's ask the next question.
21
Q: Was this about academic dishonesty or was this about conduct?
22
A: I didn't bring the investigation.
23
Q: But you played some role in it, right?
24
A: I turned over my emails.
25
Q: You turned over the emails one man sent you?
26
A: That's correct.
27
Q: One man turned over some emails another man sent him.
28
193/433
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay, so and then that brought forth an investigation that,
like, six years later, we're still rehashing, right, Mark?
Q: But you didn't have anything to do with that, right?
Judge McElroy: Its sustained.
Q: Okay, so you don't know this, this investigation that you didn't
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
bring, you were just kind of in the periphery, you don't know how it was
resolved, you don't know what it was about, whether it was about
academic dishonesty or whether it was about someone's conduct not
being how you like it.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterizes the
testimony.
13
Judge McElroy: Its editorializing.
14
Q: If I had gold teeth and corn rolls would you report my conduct
15
as well?
16
17
18
Q: Would you?
19
Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm going to stop this at this point, if you
20
can't ask a proper question, I'm not going to allow you to cross-examine
21
anymore, so.
22
Q: What am I being warned about?
23
A: I did not write this letter.
24
Q: Formal Letter of Warning? I suggest if you're going to be
25
involved in things of this manner, you should take a little bit more
26
interest in them.
27
28
194/433
Judge McElroy: Okay. He did not write the letter.
Mr. Coughlin: Seems kind of reckless.
Q: So, did did you feel assaulted or threatened?
Judge McElroy: Asked and answered and sustained. He did not
write this letter, okay, no more questions on this letter, he didn't write
it. You need to cross-examine the witness that wrote the letter.
ms.
9
Q: Okay, so, no academic dishonesty occurred in this in this

matter, is that correct? Is that what the final ruling was, Mr. Tratos?
10
11
Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer this
12
question.
13
A: That you pointed out to me, sir.
14
Q: That's correct? No academic disho- and so when I reported to
15
the State Bar that the academic dishonesty investigation was resolved
16
with a finding of no academic dishonesty, which is what I reported, that
17
was true, right?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation, it is beyond this witnesses

personal knowledge.
Judge McElroy: Sustained, it is beyond his knowledge, what's the
next question?
Q: Mr. Tratos, the day papers were turned in, where were they
turned in?
A: They were turned in class, as people left class they came down
and turned in the papers.
26
Q: In a box?
27
A: Not in a box, on a desk.
28
195/433
Q: On the podium you spoke from?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
A: I didn't speak from a podium
Q: Okay, where did you speak from?
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule.
A: I always speak from the middle of the classroom. I use the same
7
8
ms.
9
classroom most semesters.

Q: Was there a lectern?
A: There is a lectern, but I always speak in front of lectern.
Q: Okay, so the papers were turned in on a desk, right?
10
A: Correct.
11
Q: And who collected these papers?
12
A: I did.
13
Q: Not the student of yours who was in the class?
14
A: No.
15
Q: And he didn't grade them for you either?
16
A: No.
17
Q: Okay. I'm talking about the one whose grades are mentioned on
18
your website about how good he did in class.
19
Ms. Kagan: Objection, referring to-
20
A: There is no student that says what grades they got-
21
Q: Summa cum whatever?
22
Judge McElroy: Sustained, and the answer is stricken as well as
23
24
25
the question.
Q: So, these papers were all turned in and you collected yourself
and you put them in your car?
26
27
A: That's correct.
28
196/433
Judge McElroy: Okay I'm going to allow it.
Q: Do you recall receiving a paper that had handwriting atop of
it?
A: Zach, I've received many papers with handwriting on top-
Q: That is not what I am asking, Mark.
A: For that class? No.
Q: For that class, you recall specifically that none of the papers in
8
ms.
9
10
that pile had handwriting on top of them?

A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall getting a paper that had a note written on the
11
paper that said I'm not turning this paper in in a digital copy because I
12
don't want this paper posted on the class's website as you indicated you
13
planned to do for your firm's website, to bolster it with student's papers
14
from the class. Do you recall that?
15
A: I don't.
16
Q: Do you recall telling the class that you're going to post their
17
18
papers on your firm's website?

A: I don't recall telling anybody that. I do recall that I said if
19
there were good papers we may do that, but I don't ever make a
20
representation that we're going to do something specifically without
21
ever having read the papers.
22
23
Q: Okay, so and you didn't have us- did you have a class website for
24
this class?
25
A: There was a class website.
26
Q: And would papers be posted on that?
27
A: There were no papers posted on that web site.
28
197/433
Q: Okay, but did you tell the class that they would be?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: But you said it's possible?
A: Of course, that may have been possible.
Q: Without their permission you would post them?
A: No, Zach, not without their permission.
Q: You remember me asking that in class?
A: No I don't.
ms.
9
Q: Okay, so you'd have to get their permission before posting

them?
10
A: That would be common courtesy.
11
Q: Just common courtesy?
12
A: That's correct.
13
Q: You could do it if you wanted to?
14
A: Zach, is there a point to your question here?
15
Mr. Coughlin: I'm asking the questions, you just answer them,
16
okay?
17
T: You certainly are.
18
Q: Yeah. So, it's just common courtesy you could take a student's
19
work product and post it on your firm's website if you wanted to,
20
without asking them?
21
A: No, I don't believe that's case.
22
Q: But you said before it's just common courtesy whether or not
23
you did it?
24
A: On the class website.
25
Q: On the class website? So, on the class website, you can do it?
26
You could post it on the worldwide web, student's papers without
27
asking them?
28
198/433
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Next question, no more questions in
3
4
this area.
Q: Do you recall getting a paper the day papers were turned in
with a note atop of it that said I'm writing my social security number
on here rather than my name because that has been the practice in all
my law school courses was to have blind grading.
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
A: Zach, I don't remember that.

Q: You don't remember getting a paper like that?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Was there blind grading in this course?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: Why would you say that if people's names were written atop
their paper?
14
15
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him explore this
16
one more question.
17
A: People could turn in their papers either with their name on it
18
or with a social security number on it, or with a student ID number on
19
it. The paper gets graded, all of those grades then get turned into the
20
law school, the law school-
21
Q: So, a student could turn it in-
22
Judge McElroy: Let him continue.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Okay I'm just asking if there is blind grading and
24
25
he's telling me about whatJudge McElroy: He can give an explanation.
26
27
28
199/433
Q: So, if a student can put their name on it, then its not blind- if a
student worked for you put his name on it, if he could then it's not blind
grading.
A: But, you're making a fundamental mistake and the
fundamental mistake was the exams were part of the grade sixty
percent. Forty percent was a paper. I don't know who gets what in
terms of the exam grades and all I can do is essentially say on this
particular portion of the class that I graded, I don't grade the exams
ms.
9
10
exams are typically graded at the law school level if they are multiple
choice and if they're an essay then I grade those, but there's never a
name on them, so I could never-
11
Q: It's always blind grading, right?
12
A: Pardon?
13
Q: It is always blind grading?
14
A: Always.
15
Q: Except for your papers in the class with your student who is
16
your employee.
17
A: Absolutely not.
18
Q: Then the paper's can have people's names on if they want?
19
A: Absolutely not.
20
Q: Right? Well, okay, explain to me because that sounds exactly
21
like what you've been saying.
22
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor.
23
Judge McElroy: Sustained. It's irrelevant, it's totally irrelevant.
24
25
26
27
We're getting far field.

Mr. Coughlin: It shows Mr. Tratos is flip flopping on what he's
saying.
Judge McElroy: It's irrelevant.
28
200/433
Q: Do you have any knowledge about this paper that I turned in?
I'm talking about the hard copy the day it was turned in in class. Did
you hear anything from any of your employees or anybody in the world
that, whoa, you know anything? Maybe we found that paper behind a
file cabinet or remember that time you-
Judge McElroy: That's the question, have you heard?
A: No.
Q: And you are swearing that under oath?
ms.
9
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, before when you were describing that you turned in
10
these emails, the sole substance of our communications and this is to
11
somebody to start an academic dishonesty investigation, right?
12
A: Zach, I didn't know they were going to start an academic
13
investigation. I didn't think the emails were appropriate conduct from
14
a student who should have maintained a copy of this paper who should
15
have essentially kept a copy, and when I offered to retrieve the
16
electronic file from his destroyed hard drive and offered to pay for it
17
instead of doing that, treated me very unprofessionally-
18
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy. If he wants to go
19
into this stuff about offering to do something which he later withdrew
20
the offer-
21
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you know what? I am stopping the
22
cross-examination, period. You are it's over with in terms of Mr. Tratos,
23
because we're not getting anywhere and you don't seem to know how to
24
ask a proper question or a relevant question.
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: I have somewhere to go with this I assure you. Have

I not brought up some interesting points.
27
28
201/433
Judge McElroy: No. None whatsoever. So, I will go ahead and
allow you one or two more questions and then we need to wrap this up,
okay?
Q: You graded the papers?
A: I did.
Q: Did anyone else have access to the papers?
A:No.
Q: No one else read or helps you grade them?
ms.
9
10
A: No.
Q: Okay, do you still have those papers or where they turned back
to students?
11
A: I don't know if they were turned back to students.
12
Q: Would it surprise you if I was told nobody got their papers
13
back?
14
A: That wouldn't surprise me?
15
Q: Okay, so that's common, that happens?
16
A: Fairly common, happens at a lot of institutions.
17
Q: And when you turn these over, you indicated that you had no
18
discussions about the investigation that was to take place, but you had
19
problems with my conduct and from that we got an academic
20
dishonesty investigation.
21
A: I think the academic honesty investigation really grew out of
22
the unusual circumstances of asking for the electronic copy of your
23
paper, you asserting that your hard drive was destroyed, me offering to-
24
25
Q: Can you show us, show us in the testimony in the statements

where-
26
Judge McElroy: Hold on, let him finish-
27
Mr. Coughlin: He wants to go into-
28
202/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: If you interrupt anymore, I am not going to allow

you to ask any more questions okay so be warned.
Mr. Coughlin: He is not answering any questions either so I don't
really see what the point of asking them is.
Judge McElroy: He is not giving you the answer you want which
is different, okay, so you can continue with your answer.
A: Assuming that you wrote the paper as you represented you did
and that he had written it on the hard drive as you represented you did,
I offered to retrieve it for you. You objected to that because you didn't
want other files to be accessed on your hard drive. I was at an impasse,
10
there's nothing I can do at that point. At that point in time when I've
11
made every effort to try to help you get a grade in the class to get you
12
graduated but you refuse to give me the opportunity to even help you
13
do that I had no alternative but to turn it over to the academic
14
administration and say tell me what to do. Okay, tell me what to do.
15
16
Q: Do you recall having a discussion about you would only pay for
to have that one particular file retrieved?
17
A: I recall there was communication between you and I about
18
whether or not you could have me construct your entire hard drive, and
19
I suggested to you that was not really what was appropriate.
20
Q: Do you recall my saying that all the companies-
21
Judge McElroy: Wait, will you let him finish the question, okay?
22
23
24
25
I am warning you.
A: What was appropriate was for me to help you retrieve this
paper which is the subject.
Q: The one file, right? That you would pay for the one file to be
26
retrieved. Do you know of any companies that will retrieve only one
27
file from a hard drive?
28
203/433
Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm gonna allow you to ask, answer that
3
4
5
question I'm going to allow that question.

A: We work with a number of companies, I'm sure we I'm sure we
could have found somebody-
Q: You're sure it can be done?
A: I'm sure that we could find people who would give us a
8
ms.
9
reasonable price to retrieve a single file off of the hard drive.

Q: Okay, are you aware that all the companies I contacted said
that couldn't be done?
10
11
Q: Do you recall me saying that to you?
12
A: I don't.
13
14
Q: Are you aware of how much it cost to have a hard drive
15
reconstruction?
16
Ms. Kagan: objection relevancy.
17
A: depends on how much damage there is.
18
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and overrule it. Answer it.
19
A: depends on how much damage there was and I don't know about
20
what the damage was.
21
Q: Okay, give me an estimate?
22
23
Judge McElroy: Sustained, and let's no more questions in this
24
25
area. Okay, are you finished?

Mr. Coughlin: No, I am not. Not at all.
26
27
28
204/433
Judge McElroy: Okay, well I'm giving you another 10 minutes and
1
2
then we're finished with the cross-examination of Mr. Tratos, or
Professor Tratos. 10 minutes.
Q: Did I ever say no you cannot just retrieve this one file.
A: I don't recall whether you said that in an email or not. We had
email exchanges about it I don't recall what they were.

Q: So, you can't say that I flat-out refused to have just that one file
7
8
retrieved?
A: As I recalled when I made the offer to you instead of accepting
ms.
9
10
the offer and helping me help you get the job done, we had ongoing
difficulties.
Q: I'll draw your attention to the exhibits where I, in fact, accept
11
12
his offerJudge McElroy: Give us the exhibit, and the page, and ask him if
13
14
it refreshes his memory.

Q: I will direct your attention to exhibit 5, page 21, last
15
16
paragraph,: further, OnTrack has informed me that they do not
17
retrieve individual files but would rather only do the entire retrieval
18
in bulk.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I request to have the entire paragraph
19
20
read.
21
Judge McElroy: And that would be I have already informed you.
22
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
23
Judge McElroy: Okay, well, what I will do is why don't you ask a
24
question?
25
Q: Okay, page 19.
26
Judge McElroy: Wait, in terms of page 21, what's the question?
27
Q: Your Honor I am sorry I meant to go with page 19.
28
205/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: Okay, so we're going to strike everything in terms

of page 21.
Mr. Coughlin: No, that's fine, that's a relevant thing about they
will only retrieve in bulk, but that wasn't-
Judge McElroy: But, what was the question?
Q: Okay, my question relates to page 19 and it relates to the same
retrieval aspect where it says in this email that you got it says in
conclusion all have OnTrack go ahead and send you a bill and I will
ms.
9
10
fax over a contract for you to sign though I do not believe is legally
necessary to have you retrieve this data. I clearly accept your offer for
you to retrieve this.
11
12
Q: Do you understand that this is an acceptance of your offer to
13
have my hard drive rebuilt, retrieved whatever. Page 19. Because he
14
sat here today saying I refused to do that, but yet, here it is.
15
Judge McElroy: Okay, let him answer the question.
16
A: No, because-
17
Q: Are you reviewing Exhibit Five, Page 19?
18
A: Yes.
19
Judge McElroy: Okay and let him answer and please do not
20
interrupt him. If you interrupt him, I am not allowing you any more
21
questions, okay?
22
23
A: Specifically you wanted to use who you wanted to use to
24
retrieve the material setting the price they wanted to use that's not
25
what my offer was. My offer was I was going to help you since we were
26
an internet law firm, we had a-
27
Q: Can you refer to that your offer because-
28
206/433
Judge McElroy: No more questions, its over with.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just asking him to refer to where they are in the
emails.
Judge McElroy: Its over with.
Mr. Coughlin: Because, its all in the emails, right? So he should be
able to point to it and not paraphrase it, that's the beauty of email,
Mark.
8
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: Okay, finish with explaining it. You know, I

have been more than patient. I'm telling you this is just a warning. If
you interrupt one more time, I am cutting off this cross-examination.
It's a warning, so you better not do it because I mean it this time.
11
Mr. Coughlin: All right, Your Honor.
12
A: Zach, your email goes on for several lengthy lines and you'll
13
notice that the end of that paragraph, which is a long run on
14
paragraph, you're talking about things that you believe are legally
15
necessary as personal service contracts not less than five thousand
16
dollars. What you had turned a simple effort on my part to help you get
17
your grade by getting a paper into me you turn it into some kind of
18
mental contest about whether or not you should have something
19
reconstructed. I don't know, to this day, Zach, I don't know what was
20
the problem with your hard drive or if you ever had a problem with
21
your hard drive. Honestly, I don't know. But it's a very unusual for a
22
student rather than help his professor try to get him the grade that he's
23
looking for so he can graduate it's very unusual for you to act this way.
24
And, later on, Zach, you did call me and you did apologize to me and in
25
fact apologize later on and in various communications and you told me
26
that you are in a 12-step program and part of your obligation was to
27
call me and apologize and I accepted and I thought we were back on
28
207/433
even, absolutely even footing and your conduct today suggests to the
contrary.
Q: I'm sorry, so you admit that I go ahead and say okay you can go
ahead and and retrieve this file?

A: No, you said you were going to give it to someone you wanted to
6
7
give it to, not what I had offered.

Q: Okay, does it say anywhere in here that I'm refusing to let you
8
ms.
do it your way?
A: It doesn't say that it said you were gonna do it with OnTrack.
Q: Okay, but, did you ever write back to say, no, no we do it my
10
11
way around here.
12
A: I don't recall I would ever write something like that.
13
Q: Okay, but did you ever write back to say, fine let's do this, but
14
let's do it this way? Or, no you didn't?
15
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy, Your Honor.
16
Q: Did you ever follow up on that?
17
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and allow one more question
18
in this area.
A: I'm not sure exact but I think you already had a grade by this
19
20
time. I think you had already sent me your paper and I had already
21
given it a grade and this is coming after the fact.

Mr. Coughlin: Well actually a grade wasn't issued until December
22
23
2nd.
24
T: Okay.
25
Mr. Coughlin: This is like October 10 th, so at that point, no, this is,
26
this is shortly after you've-by way of refreshing your memory of the
27
28
208/433
chronology, class ends July 15, you write me July 7 th, you write the
school asking for mine and Jessica's emails-
Ms. Kagan: Objection, counselor is testifying for the witness?
Mr. Coughlin: No, I am just bringing up some dates because he
clearly doesn't know the dates.
Judge McElroy: What is the question.
Q: You never followed up on that? because I'm establishing that
grades were still out, he's still doing thisJudge McElroy: So the question is did you ever follow up on this
ms.
9
email?
A: I don't recall because I think on September the 13th, Zach sent
10
11
me an apology and Zach specificallyQ: Can you show this in the exhibit rather than just trying to
12
13
remember it?
A: Sure it's on page bates number 0009 of Exhibit 5 and there you
14
15
attached-
16
Mr. Coughlin: That's from September 13th?
17
A: That's correct.
18
Q: Okay, but the letter you were talking about was from October
19
10th.
20
A: That's correct.
21
Judge McElroy: Will you let him answer the question?
22
A: What I'm saying to you is we already had received from you a
23
paper sufficient for me to determine whether or not you were going to
24
pass or fail. Because I had a paper, I graded the paper, I said you're
25
going to pass and the question at that point was were you going to be
26
able to graduate from law school, I believe. Okay, so after I had already
27
given you a passing grade then you were then asking me to spend
28
209/433
thousands of dollars to retrieve your entire hard drive instead of a
single file. that's why I think it was not particularly relevant.
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
Q: Was it relevant to the academic dishonesty investigation was

going on?
A: Zach, I didn't know an academic dishonesty investigation was
going on.
Q: Okay, and you didn't know that I didn't receive my grade until
December, right?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, ambiguous.
Judge McElroy: Go ahead, let him ask.
10
A: I don't know when they gave you your grade, Zach.
11
Q: So, you just don't know a whole lot of things, right?
12
Judge McElroy: You have like two minutes to ask your questions.
13
If this is how you want to spend it, go ahead.
14
Q: One question I truly am curious about is how do you go-
15
Judge McElroy: Make sure its relevant.
16
Q: How do you go from sending me an email to sing where I say I
17
only have this draft right do you recall that? And then you say okay
18
give me the draft, and I turn the draft in then next thing I know a
19
couple weeks goes by and then I get a letter on my birthday from the
20
Dean saying academic dishonesty investigation. Where do we go from
21
you saying turn in the draft to academic dishonesty? How do we get
22
there?
23
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative, speculation, relevant.
24
Judge McElroy: It doesn't call for speculation, I'm going to sustain
25
it, you have one more question.
26
Q: Do you recall saying turn in your draft?
27
A: I told you turn in whatever you had.
28
210/433
Q: Turn in whatever I had, that's in one of these emails, right?
From there, when I do what you said, was that like a little trick or
something?
Judge McElroy: It is sustained, and the time is up so, do you have
any- cross-examination is completed, Mr. Coughlin, cross-examination
is over. Do we have any redirect?
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Okay, Mr. Tratos, you may step down.

Ms. Kagan: Your Honor are we taking a break?
10
Judge McElroy: Yes, we are.
11
Ms. Kagan: May I have one moment to talk with the witnesses?
12
13
Court Personnel: Are we still on the record?
14
Judge McElroy: Yeah, but we can go off the record, wait, just a
15
moment, don't say anything.
16
Judge McElroy: Back on the record
17
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, the State Bar calls Christine Smith to
18
19
20
the stand.
(The oath was administered to Christine Smith.)
By Ms. Kagan:
21
Q: good afternoon, Dean Smith? are you currently employed?
22
A: yes. I am employed at the University of Nevada Las Vegas the
23
William S. Boyd School of Law.
24
Q: and what is your position at UNLV?
25
A: I am the Associate Dean for Administration and Student
26
27
Affairs.
Q: how long have you been in that position?
28
211/433
A: Since September of 1997.
Q; can you just go into a little detail about what your
3
4
responsibilities are?
A: On the student affair's side, I supervise the offices of admission
the dean for student advancement, career services, registrar. on the
administration side I supervise the staff in the business operations
management part of the school. part of my duties in connection with
student affairs is that I am responsible for students Honor Code
ms.
9
10
matters and I do an extensive amount of counseling of students as well.

Q: are you familiar with the applicant in this matter, Zachary
Coughlin.
11
A: yes.
12
Q: how do you know Mr. Coughlin?
13
A: Mr. Coughlin was a student and he is now an alum of the
14
15
school.
Q: I would specifically like to talk about three different topics
16
regarding Mr. Coughlin and the first one being an academic
17
disciplinary investigation that took place in the school regarding
18
emails between himself and professor Tratos.
19
A: right, in summer of, I believe 2001 Zachary was enrolled in
20
professor Tratos' cyber law course. there was a paper due in that course.
21
Zachary had claimed that he had submitted that paper for the course
22
requirements. professor Tratos had stated that he had never received
23
the paper. there were emails that went back and forth between Zachary
24
and professor Tratos. some of those emails were determined to be
25
unprofessional and the matter was sent to me and I met with Zachary
26
and spoke with Professor Tratos and others and I submitted the case to
27
Philip Burns who was the Student Conduct Officer for the University.
28
212/433
at that time the law school did not have its own honor code
established yet because we were a new law school and all of our Honor
Code matters were initially investigated by me to determine whether
or not there was cause and then I would forward them to the office of
judicial affairs in this matter.
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Q: regarding Mr. Coughlin, did you find that there was cause for a
referral?
A: I did.
Q: and what was the basis for that decision?
A: Um, the basis for that decision? You know what, Lynn took all
my papers.
Ms. Kagan: Did you bring something that would refresh your
recollection?
A: I had sent a letter over to Philip and I can't remember since it
was six years ago specifically what that letter said, so.
Q: can I direct your attention to the witness binders in front of
you, if you can turn to exhibit 5. do you recognize this exhibit?
17
A: I do, yes.
18
Q: And how do you recognize it?
19
A: this is a letter that I wrote to the vice president for student
20
affairs Rebecca Mills and Philip Burns, the Student Judicial Affairs
21
Officer. both are at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
22
Q: are you referring to bates stamp page five?
23
A: yes.
24
Q: Is this the referral letter you just testified about?
25
A: Yes.
26
Q: and I'd like you to look at page 1 of the exhibit. Do you
27
recognize page one and how?
28
213/433
1
2
A: yes that's a letter that I wrote to Zachary asking him to

schedule a meeting with me to discuss the matter.
Q: and did a meeting actually take place?
Mr. Coughlin: objection, relevance.
Q: did a meeting actually take place?
A: yes, we did have a meeting.
Q: what happened at the meeting? Do you recall?
ms.
A: I really don't recall specifically but I can tell you that based on
the conversation that we had I was concerned enough that I then
10
forwarded the matter on to the university student affairs judicial
11
officers.
12
13
Q: ok I'd like you to look at a page 2 of the exhibit. do you

recognize page two?
14
A: Yes, that's an email that I wrote to Mr. Coughlin.
15
Q: and what were you requesting in that email?
16
A: I was asking him to provide me with an explanation of the
17
18
19
circumstances surrounding the submission of the cyber law paper.

Q: and if you turn to pages 3 through 4 of the exhibit do you
recognize those pages?
20
A: that appears to be Mr. Coughlin's response to me.
21
Q: and at the top of the email it states a date of 10/4/01. would it be
22
fair to say that that was before your letter to the student official
23
judicial affairs officer on October 11th, 2001?
24
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, your honor, I don't see the relevance in

this and why we're taking so much time to go bit by bit on what's what.
27
28
214/433
A: The date on Mr. Coughlin's email to me was October 4th, 2001
and I wrote the letter and sent it to Dr. Mills and Philip Burns on
October 11, 2001.
4
5
6
Q: do you know what happened to the matter after you referred it

to those people?
A: you have to refresh my memory with the exhibit but I believe
that Mr. Burns found that there was not academic dishonesty but there
was another incident that had occurred involving Mr. Coughlin
ms.
9
dismantling a computer in the microforms area of the library and

taking that to another area the library to use it for his personal use
10
and in that situation Mr. Burns did find that there was a code of
11
conduct violation and he had Mr. Coughlin pay $100 restitution to the
12
University.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q: I would like to discuss that matter in just a minute but can you
refer to exhibit 53. do you recognize exhibit 53?
A: this is the letter that Mr Burns wrote to Mr. Coughlin after his
investigation of the honor code matter.
Q: did you receive this letter at some point during the
investigation.
19
A: yes.
20
Q: And, do you know what happened after this letter was sent, do
21
you know?
22
A: I don't recall. in connection with this this matter specifically?
23
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
24
A: no.
25
Q: Did you have anything to do with the investigation conducted
26
27
by Philip Burns?
A: Not to the best of my recollection, no.
28
215/433
1
2
Q: In both matters? Did he investigate both matters that you're

aware of? the emails as well as the computer?
A: Yes.
Q: Turn to exhibit 58 and that is a seven-page exhibit I'd like you
specifically to turn to page 5 of the exhibit do you recognize page 5 of
exhibit 58?
7
8
ms.
9
10
A: yes. this is a memo that I wrote to Dr. Mills and Philip Burns
notifying them that Mr. Coughlin had disconnected the computer in the
microphones room of the library at UNLV.
Q: was the computer that was disconnected for student use?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, your honored, relevance. I don't see what
11
is the point at issue or the relevancy. we're talking about the computer?
12
we already said that in the application.
13
14
A: this particular computer was not for a general student use. it
15
was dedicated specifically to the microforms area and it was for patrons
16
both students and the general public to use when they were looking at
17
microforms and using the microform station in the library.
18
Q: let me go back and just ask you is are the statements that you
19
put in this memo are were they an accurate representation of the
20
situation?
21
A: To the best of my knowledge.
22
Q: and what exactly happened in this instance.
23
A: To the best of my recollection one of the library faculty,
24
Matthew Wright had gone into the micro forms room on the evening of
25
October 11, 2001 and noticed that the computer was not there. the
26
computer, the mouse and the keyboard that they were not there so he
27
was concerned and he went for a walk through the library to see if he
28
216/433
could find it anywhere and he found Mr. Coughlin in another area of
the library using that computer and keyboard for his own personal use.
Q: Was Mr. Coughlin authorized to use that computer.
A: No.
Q: Was Mr. Coughlin authorized to dismantle the computer?
A: No.
Q: was Mr. Coughlin authorized to move the computer?
A: No.
ms.
9
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor.

Judge McElroy: overruled.
Mr. Coughlin: But what are we getting at? Why are we
establishing this? That is why I objected, Your Honor.
12
Judge McElroy: Part of the charges in terms of lack of candor.
13
Mr. Coughlin: but didn't we say in the last thing with Tratos,
14
that's important because of how you reported it whether you reported it
15
or not. What's important about this?
16
Judge McElroy: My understanding is the State Bar is alleging
17
that when the question was asked have you been dropped, expelled, or
18
otherwise disciplined by any school for any reason other than academic
19
performance. you marked yes and then replied I was find $100 by
20
UNLV for moving a computer, monitor and keyboard for an hour on
21
December 1st. they are contending that there is some misrepresentation
22
and they can try to prove their case.
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: They're contending I misrepresented about moving

the computer?
Judge McElroy: no, they're contending that you did not give an
adequate enough reason for why there was a $100 fine.
Mr. Coughlin: that's the first Ive heard of this.
28
217/433
Judge McElroy: well, you know-
Mr. Coughlin: That is not in their Pre-Trial Statement.
Ms. Kagan: Yes it is.
Mr. Coughlin: Can we cite that?
Judge McElroy: you can ask in cross-examination. you need to be
6
7
8
ms.
9
familiar with your case.

Mr. Coughlin: If we have time, if she keeps going at this rate, we
are not going to have time for me.
Judge McElroy: Go ahead, what is the next question?
Q: Was Mr. Coughlin fined for, and I'm going to use specific
10
language, in your opinion, was he fined for moving a computer
11
monitor and keyboard 10 feet to attach a computer for an hour on Dec
12
01, 2002?
13
A: I believe that without looking at Mr. Burns letter, I believe
14
that he was fined because he had violated the UNLV code and I'd have
15
to look at the specific section but I think it had something to do with
16
misuse of University property.
17
Q: Do you know why there was a fine of $100 in this case?
18
A: I don't know why Mr. Burns specifically chose that amount,
19
$100. I think it had something to do with the fact that staff time was
20
taken to first of all find the computer and then to have to put the
21
computer back in its proper spot. and then there were also some re-
22
settings that had to be done to the computer because the settings were
23
off from what they should have been at that particular station.
24
Q: when you testified earlier that the law library employee found
25
Mr. Coughlin in another part of the library. can you explain where he
26
was found, if you know.
27
28
218/433
A: I don't know that I knew. My familiarity with that building
was that the microforms computer was in sort of a isolated room and
the computer was taken out of that room and moved to another room in
the library. There in that same library, very near to this area was an
area for student use. the student computer lab that was specifically for
law students and that computer lab had approximately 30 computers
for student use.
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q: that was nearby but that's not where Mr. Coughlin was found,
or was it?
A: I don't believe he was found in the computer lab. I believe he
was found in a nearby room in the library.
Q: Did you ever do any independent investigation into either the
incidents with Professor Tratos or the computer incident?
A: well my investigation in connection with the matter in Mr.
Tratos'
cyber law class was that I spoke to Mr. Coughlin and I spoke to Mr.
16
Tratos and I reviewed the email exchanges. I didn't bring my notes
17
from the investigation. I don't remember if I spoke to other students in
18
the class.
19
In the situation with the library matter, I spoke to Matthew
20
Wright who was the law library faculty member who discovered that
21
the computer was missing. I also spoke with Mr. Coughlin and I spoke
22
with one of our IT staff members Donald Castle and I spoke with Mr.
23
Burns.
24
Q: I'd like you to turn to exhibit 18 please. exhibit 18 is actually a
25
three pages because there's a front and back to one and two. do recognize
26
exhibit 18?
27
28
219/433
1
2
3
4
A: This is a State Bar of California form which I completed and

signed and returned to the State Bar of California.
Q: and under number 2, the question is do you have any reason to
question the applicants fitness for admission to practice law?
A: I checked yes.
Q: and what was your reason for checking yes?
A: my reason for checking yes was that throughout Mr. Coughlin's
8
ms.
9
law school career I suspected that he might have a substance abuse

problem. in meetings that he and I had together I hadMr. Coughlin: Objection, speculation.
10
11
A: I had recommended that he might want to see someone at the
12
University Student Wellness Center and I had observed throughout his
13
law school career several instances of erratic behavior. there were
14
other situations besides the situation with Mr. Tratos and Mr. Wright
15
there was some problems with his submission of his writing
16
requirement paper with Professor Jeff' Stemple. there was another
17
matter in connection with his enrollment in Associate Dean
18
LaFrance's intellectual property class, there was another matter in
19
connection with his employment in the law library, there was another
20
matter in connection with his treatment of staff members in the
21
library regarding returning overdue books, and I seriously questioned
22
his character and his ability to be a lawyer and to have clients.
23
Q: can we going into just a little detail about each of these
24
instances that you just discussed.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevancy.
26
Judge McElroy: why don't we recall the incidences and then ask
27
more questions.
28
220/433
Q: Dean Smith you mentioned something about an IP class taught
by Professor LaFrance, can you explain what the behavior was by Mr.
Coughlin that matter?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, hearsay.
A: In that circumstance in the fall of 2001, Mr. Coughlin had
enrolled in professor LaFrance's intellectual property course. he had
enrolled in that course because the matter with Professor Tratos was
ms.
9
still pending. he wasn't sure if he was going to pass that course. he took
professor LaFrance's course in the instance that he might not pass
10
Tratos' course and then he would still have enough credits to graduate
11
in December of 2001. school started in late August 2001. he did not
12
attend class until October 4th if I recall, correctly. I believe that he
13
came late to that class according to communications from Dean
14
LaFrance. She had contacted him and asked him to provide an
15
explanation for his lack of attendance because she did have an
16
attendance policy and he had already missed several classes. the result
17
of that whole matter was that she administratively withdrew him
18
from her class. but in the process of that happening he had sent at least
19
one email that was unprofessional and rude.
20
21
22
Q: Then I believe the first incident you mentioned was with
23
24
Professor Stemple?
A: we have a requirement at the law school that each student,
25
prior to graduation as a graduation course requirement must complete
26
a substantial writing project, must write an article of publishable
27
28
221/433
quality. Mr. Coughlin had submitted a paper to Professor Stemple who
had determined that that paper-
Mr. Coughlin: if we're going to go into all these, can I go into the
6
7
8
ms.
9
Anson matter that she didn't bother to bring up?

Judge McElroy: If you want to muddy the field and bring more
and more of your conduct into this hearing that's fine. it's not working
for you.
Ms. Kagan: just as long as we're not going to ignore the Anson
10
thing. because you forgot to mention it Christine, and go into the five
11
other things.
12
Judge McElroy: Enough.
13
A: Mr. Coughlin had submitted a paper in fulfillment of the
14
writing requirement to Professor Stemple who had communicated to
15
Mr. Coughlin that there were substantial deficiencies with that paper.
16
he had sent him a memo that outlined the deficiencies and he had asked
17
him to rewrite the paper addressing the deficiencies outlined in the
18
memo, and it took several weeks, possibly even months for that whole
19
process to be completed because he was in an email exchange with
20
Professor simple in what I would call you know just disagreeing with
21
the the quality of the paper and whether or not it fulfilled the writing
22
requirement-
23
24
Judge McElroy: This is not going to the truth of the matter, so I'm
25
going to overrule the objection.
26
Q: and then if we can just talk about his employment-
27
Mr. Coughlin: Sorry, Your Honor, you overruled the objection?
28
222/433
Judge McElroy: Yes, because as explained it's not for the truth of
the matter, its to explain her opinion as to why she was concerned
about whether you should be a lawyer or not.
Q: If we can just discuss Mr. Coughlin's employment at the law
library. you mentioned that was something that also caused you
concern. I believe that the law library faculty could better address-
7
8
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: objection, your honor. This is hearsay when she's

quoting all these other people.
Judge McElroy: I don't know. You haven't allowed her to finish.
Mr. Coughlin: but in previous answers she said well Dean
LaFrance told me and so-and-so told me
11
Judge McElroy: The problem is its hearsay only if it's going for
12
the truth of the matter. this is to explain why her opinion is that you
13
should not be a lawyer.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so in the last situation, she is explaining it
15
because there was a paper due and I had some discussion about what
16
was supposed to be in the paper-
17
18
19
20
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin. Quit interrupting and act like a

lawyer. So, what's the next?
Q: Ill just make this brief. were you aware of Mr. Coughlin's, any
of his contacts at the law library.
21
A: Yes.
22
Q: and can you tell me what you personally knew of?
23
A: I was notified by law library staff of a couple of incidents. one
24
incident involved Zachary taking money from a cash box. another
25
incident involved Zachary having books checked out of the library.
26
they were overdue. a library staff member called him to tell him they
27
were overdue and request that they be returned to the library and he
28
223/433
swore at that staff member and there was another similar incident over
overdue books.
3
4
Q: Dean Smith, one question. has anything changed your opinion

that you provided to the State Bar as represented in exhibit 18.
A: no.
Judge McElroy: thank you. Cross-examination?
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: Dean Smith did you go to law school?
A: No. I did not.
Q: But you are the Dean.
A: I am the Associate Dean for Administration and Student
Affairs.
12
Q: so, you're not a lawyer?
13
A: I am not a lawyer.
14
Q: And you didn't go to law school, but you're the Dean of the law
15
16
17
school?
A: I am not the Dean of the law school. I am the Associate Dean of
the law school. there's a difference.
18
Q: were you ever were the Dean of the law school.
19
A: I have never been a dean of a law school.
20
Q: Were you ever any other kind of Dean besides Associate Dean
21
at UNLV?
22
A: No.
23
Q: in the first years of existence? didn't you become this Associate
24
Dean of Student Affairs later on. werent' you originally like the Vice
25
Dean or something?
26
A: my original title was Associate Dean.
27
Q: Just straight Associate Dean?
28
224/433
A: yes and then as the school grew and an Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs was hired my title was changed to Administrative
Associate Dean for Administration and Student Affairs.
Q: I noticed when you were elucidating, I think it was the five
incidences, you mentioned something about a paper with Jeff Stemple
where there I did a paper, wasn't quite what he wanted and we went
back and forth over what it needed to have for a while and then I
turned it in the paper was done. I really didn't see where you were
ms.
9
10
11
going with? Where that was all that incendiaryMs. Kagan: Objection, is there a question pending?
Judge McElroy: There's gotta be a question pending, and quit
editorializing.
12
Q: With Jeff Stemple, why even bring that up?
13
A: my concern was there are email notes in the file from you to
14
professor Stemple that I believe were unprofessional?
15
Mr. Coughlin: objection, hearsay, no foundation.
16
17
Q: What was unprofessional?
18
A: I could tell you if I had that right in front of me. I actually
19
had it in my folder that Lynn has right now. if it's in one of these
20
exhibits I would be happy to tell you what was unprofessional.
21
Q: Was it submitted to the State Bar of California?
22
A: I believe so but I'm not absolutely certain.
23
Q: The Stemple thing?
24
A: I can't tell you for certain items. I don't know what is here in
25
26
27
front of me.
Judge McElroy: Your questions should be addressed to the
witness.
28
225/433
Q: we don't have that in the 69 exhibits. we don't have anything
1
2
about Stemple in hereJudge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I should warn you that you should
3
4
be happy that it's not. The more you bring out the worse the case gets.
You need to focus on the issue at hand here and notQ: I noticed you mentioned like five things. you mentioned
6
7
something about the library, you mentioned something about being
enrolled in a class and then later not dropping the class or not taking
ms.
9
10
the class or something like that. but you didn't mention anything
regarding professor Anson. can you explain that Professor Anson
situation, why that didn't come up when you were talking?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lacks foundation.
12
Judge McElroy: You know what? I think I'm going to go ahead
13
and let you answer if you can.

A: I don't know. Are you referring to a professor Anson situation
14
15
that is specific to you?

Mr. Coughlin: I was on the periphery of it. I had a meeting with
16
17
you about it.
18
19
Q: why she didn't bring this up, this Anson matter?
20
A; I don't know specifically what matter you're referring to and I
21
don't-
22
Q: Did a Professor Anson work at your law school?
23
A: yes.
24
Q: was he fired?
25
A: yes.
26
Q: what was he fired for?
27
28
226/433
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: It would like you to make an offer of proof right

now because I don't see the relevancy.
Mr. Coughlin: Well I had issues with some of the treatment I
received from professor Anson. he was later terminated from the law
school for matters that didn't involve me.
Judge McElroy: how is this relevant to this hearing?
Q: why wasn't this brought up?
Judge McElroy: Because it wasn't relevant to you.
ms.
A: Because its not relevant to you.
Q: so none of my conduct was unprofessional within that Anson?
10
nothing I did related to the Anson or my meeting with you about him
11
was unprofessional?
12
Ms. Kagan: objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
13
Q: If you're saying I was professional, then please, tell me how
14
professional I was. if I was unprofessional please explain how and tell
15
me why you didn't bring that up-
16
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin please let her explain her answer.
go ahead if you can explain.
A: I have a hard time remembering any interactions with you in
which you were professional.
20
Q: In which I was professional.
21
A: yes which is why I have submitted what I've submitted to the
22
State Bar of California.
23
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what is the next question?
24
Q: So was I unprofessional in this Anson situation?
25
A: I don't remember the specifics behind that situation so I can't
26
answer that.
27
28
227/433
Q: Yet, you remember the specifics about a paper that was due in
1
2
Stemple's class? This is a guy who got fired and you don't remember
about that? But you remember everything about a paper with
Stemple?
Judge McElroy: Sustained, what's the question?
Q: So you don't have any recollection of me writing you an email
about professor Anson.

Ms. Kagan: objection, asked and answered.
ms.
Mr. Coughlin: What was the answer?
9
10
11
Q: Do you have in your in your file at school an email from me to
12
you about professor Anson?

A: I believe that there is an email from you to me about professor
13
14
Anson.
15
Q: And what was he fired for?
16
A: Objection, relevance.
17
Judge McElroy: Again, sustained.
18
Q: Why wasn't I asked to comment at all during professor Anson's
19
trial?
20
21
22
Q: I noticed you said I believe you said you didn't speak when you
23
were investigating this academic dishonesty bit? you know the thing
24
where I acted unprofessionally and so we said well we're going to bring
25
an academic dishonesty charge? or where you said I acted
26
unprofessionally and so you said well this is academic dishonesty right
27
here-
28
228/433
Judge McElroy: its sustained. Ask a question.
Q: I notice you said you didn't speak with other students about
this. You said I spoke with Don Castle and maybe somebody else and
somebody else-
Ms. Kagan: objection, misstates her testimony.
Judge McElroy: What are you talking about?
Q: This. I'm talking about the academic dishonesty investigation
ms.
9
10
stemming from Professor Tratos' course and your investigation of and

you stated that you didn't speak with other students in the class in
regard to this matter is, is that true?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, that misstates her testimony.
12
Mr. Coughlin: Well, then, can you please clarify what your
13
14
15
16
testimony was?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection. ask a question
that comports with what her testimony is.
Q: did you say something about whether or not you spoke with
17
students in the cyber law class related to the paper incident involving
18
Mark Tratos?
19
A: Today you mean?
20
Q: yes.
21
A: Yes, I did make a statement.
22
Q: can you tell me roughly what that statement reported?
23
A: I would have to have the transcriber read that back to me. I
24
don't want to misspeak.
25
Q: why don't you just give me roughly what you said?
26
Judge McElroy: Why don't you just ask a direct question?
27
Q: Did you talk to other students?
28
229/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: Did you talk to other students regarding this? it's
pretty simple.
Q: Well see but it's interesting. she can't quite remember what she
said and then now she wants to hear it back and-
Q: Did you ask other students?
Judge McElroy: I am going to strike all this editorializing.
Q: Did you ask other- They are certainly editorializing when they
ms.
9
10
11
are going into all these peripheral incidents withJudge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you cannot seem to ask a direct
question.
Q: did you speak to students in the class? the cyber law class
12
having anything to do with the investigation related to me and the
13
paper in Mark Tratos' class?
14
A: I don't recall.
15
Q: because earlier you said that you didn't.
16
Judge McElroy: okay she said she didn't recall. ask the next
17
18
19
question.
Q: ok why earlier did you say that I didn't speak to other students
in the class?
20
Ms. Kagan: Objection, misstates her testimony.
21
Judge McElroy: sustained.
22
Q: so now okay-
23
Judge McElroy: Why don't you just ask a direct question?
24
Q: the question was I don't remember whether I spoke to other
25
26
27
students.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so she doesn't remember. Ask the next
question.
28
230/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: You don't remember whether you spoke to other students in the

class?
A: that's right. I don't remember whether I spoke to other
students.
Q: Would that be something you do normally in the course of an
investigation?
A: not always.
Q: do you remember me telling you of several students who would
ms.
9
10
11
say that they saw me turn the paper in?

A: I remember you telling me that yes.
Q: and you remember whether you asked those students or
followed up on that in any way?
12
13
Judge McElroy: I'm going to overrule the objection. Just, if you
14
can remember.
15
A: Re-state the question please.
16
Q: Did you ever talk to the students who I mentioned saw me turn
17
the paper in?
18
A: I don't specifically recall talking to other students.
19
Q: Would that be a normal thing in an investigation of this type?
20
A: Not always.
21
Q: why wouldn't you talk to eyewitnesses?
22
A: in in your specific situation I was determining whether or not
23
there was cause for me to forward your case to Mr. Burns and Mr. Burns
24
is the person who would speak with you and would speak with the
25
other students. I believe that in the course of his investigation he spoke
26
with other students in connection with the charges.
27
28
231/433
Q: so in determining whether or not to turn this into an official
academic investigation which has to be reported to any State Bar you
ever apply to, you might not know that because you didn't go to law
school-
Q: in the course of-
Judge McElroy: Can you please show some respect for people in
8
ms.
9
10
this court?
Mr. Coughlin: As soon as someone shows some to me. In the course
of doing that you didn't speak to any of these students? you escalated it
onto the official level-
11
Ms. Kagan: objection, compound, and asked and answered.
12
Judge McElroy: Sustained, what's the question.
13
Mr. Coughlin: I haven't asked my question, so I don't know how it
14
15
16
17
could be asked yet answered.

Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I'm giving you 10 more minutes on
this witness and then this is it, so you need to ask effective questions.
Q: in another area of the library for personnel, where this this
18
thing was supposedly moved, was it in the same, did it have the same
19
four walls as from where it was moved?
20
Ms. Kagan: Objection, vague and ambiguous.
21
Q: 1, 2, 3, 4, there is four walls, was the computer in the same room
22
originally from where it was moved?
23
Judge McElroy: I overrule the objection.
24
Q: Because you are making it sound- from your earlier testimony
25
you make it sound like he dragged it across the street somewhere.
26
Judge McElroy: Will you just ask the question? Ask the question.
27
Q: Was it in the same room, same four walls containing the room?
28
232/433
A: I don't know I would have to ask Mr. Wright that question.
Q: but earlier you knew enough to-
Q: okay then if you don't know then why earlier were you able to
describe it as he dragged it to another area of the library?
A: because you did, but I-
Q: If it is in the same area or if you don't even know what area it's
in how can you describe whether it's in the same area or another area?
ms.
A: the way that the library was laid out, it was a very big space.
the particular room that the microforms was in, was a room not much
10
larger than this room. there were rooms, larger rooms adjacent to that
11
particular room. I don't know whether you were in that very same room
12
or if you were in the next room. but I do know that Mr. Wright had to
13
go looking for the computer so it wasn't right next to its proper spot.
14
Q: Do you recall Mr. Wright telling you that I walked up to him
15
and told him I had the computer when I saw him approach the
16
computer? And when I say computer I mean monitor, because the
17
hard drive was never moved, right?
18
Ms. Kagan: Objection, how many questions are pending?
19
Q: Because it was just the monitor and the mouse that were moved.
20
Judge McElroy: ok what's the question?
21
Q: Do you recall Mr. Wright saying I approached him?
22
A: No.
23
Judge McElroy: What' the next question?
24
Q: I will direct you to Mr. Wright's exhibit.
25
Judge McElroy: what's the number?
26
Mr. Coughlin: it's this exhibit 58.
27
Judge McElroy: What's the page number?
28
233/433
Q: Well, okay, here he says page 1.
Judge McElroy: please. what page? page 1 of exhibit 58?
Mr. Coughlin: yeah.
Judge McElroy: what is the question? no editorializing.
Q: Well I'm asking, do you recall whether or not I went up to him
and I'm saying do you recall this email to you where it says
disconnected the monitor, keyboard, and mouse which is in
contradiction you're saying I moved the whole computer earlier but
ms.
9
10
11
12
anywayJudge McElroy: clearly Mr. Coughlin you don't know how to

refresh the memory of of a witness.
Q: He said he ran into Zach what does that mean? does that mean I
approached him?
13
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin-
14
Judge McElroy: its speculation.
15
16
17
Ms. Kagan: If he can point to where he's referring.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Paragraph three, line 4.
19
Judge McElroy: well first of all we don't need to go into this
20
21
22
because it's speculation. this is not something that she wrote.

Mr. Coughlin: But its something that was written to her that she
used in starting her investigation.
23
Ms. Kagan: lack of foundation.
24
25
Q: Can you tell me what it means when it says I ran into Zach.
26
Does that mean I came up and approached him and said look I used this
27
to do yada yada?
28
234/433
Ms. Kagan: objection, speculation.
Q: Did he just run into me?
Judge McElroy: Sustained. what's the next question?
Q: What do you think it means when he says I ran into Zach?
A: Well as I read this memo it's Mr. Wright says I entered the
microforms room at approximately six-thirty pm Thursday night and
the monitor, keyboard, and mouse were all missing. I immediately
thought they were stolen. I looked and wandered around when I ran
ms.
9
into Zach. Zach had disconnected the monitor, keyboard, and mouse. so
when he says he ran into you-
10
Mr. Coughlin: and can you continue to where he says he had
11
moved them into one of the carrels in the microforms room? Is that the
12
same microform room that you just mentioned earlier?
13
Judge McElroy: Before anyone answers any questions in this
14
matter I'm going to tell you if you interrupt a witness and the middle of
15
an answer any more times I am not allowing you to cross-examine the
16
witness and I mean it. so you need to wait and listen to the answer and
17
not interrupt and no more editorializing or you will not be asking any
18
more questions of this witness and I mean it.
19
20
Judge McElroy: So, if it happens again you're out of here. now ask
21
22
a question.
Q: Does this letter from Mr. Wright indicate that I had moved
23
these materials into one of the carrels in the micro forms room? is that
24
microforms room he's referring to-
25
Judge McElroy: one question at a time.
26
27
28
235/433
A: Yes the memo that I'm reading now says that you had moved
the monitor, keyboard, and mouse to one of the carrels in the
microforms room.
Q: How many microforms rooms are there?
A: in that library there was one microforms room.
Q: o it was moved somewhere in the same room as where it
originally was, the computer, right?
A: according to this memo, yes.
ms.
9
10
11
Q: and that room is no bigger than this room?

A: it's was about the same size, yes.
Q: it's not really the same shape though right? it's an oblong room,
right?
12
A: It was an oblong room you're right.
13
Q: okay, so if it was moved from one wall to the next it was moved
14
about 10 feet right?
15
16
A: I think it was probably more than that.
17
Judge McElroy: okay I'm going to allow the answer to stand.
18
19
20

Q: I'd like to ask you about this letter, this exhibit 53. Our
problem here is they are, we're saying didn't-
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, is there a question?
22
23
Q: was I cleared of any academic dishonesty?
24
A: in this letter from Mr. Burns he says that you are to consider
25
this letter a formal letter of warning and that if you're found
26
responsible for similar violations of the Student Code, your status as a
27
student at UNLV will be reconsidered.
28
236/433
Q: and what was the violation I was found, does that mean I was
1
2
found guilty of some violation? It says similar. that to me implies there
was one to begin with, so what was the one to begin with? what was the
violation?
A: I need to read Mr. Burns' letter.
Mr. Coughlin: Please do.
A: I believe from reading the paragraph above that he's referring
8
ms.
to academic dishonesty. he says it appears that academic dishonesty did

not occur.
Q: okay, so is that the violation?
A: I believe that that's the violation he's referring to in number
10
11
one
12
of.
13
Q: So is it a formal letter of warning for something that didn't
14
occur? that didn't, like as in, that didn't occur, I'm going to warn you to
15
not do that again. don't you not do that again, Mr. Coughlin.
16
17
Judge McElroy: What is the question? ask one question at a time
18
19
let it be no compoundA: I'm sorry, I've read farther into the memo, and farther into the
20
memo it says in the matter of Section P, I recommend the following
21
sanction and section P is assaulting, striking, threatening or causing
22
physical harm to another.
23
Q: and who was that done to?
24
A: I don't recall.
25
Q: Wouldn't that kind of be important to put in a report?
26
A: This is not my report.
27
Judge McElroy: Its not her report.
28
237/433
Q: But you kind of were in charge of student affairs, right? and
one of your, one of your kind of duties would be to understand what's
going on right? with this particular investigation if you're going to-
A: this was not my the investigation nor was it my report.
Judge McElroy: what's the next question?
Q: what was I found guilty of here?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him re-emphasize
ms.
9
10
and re-emphasize the problem.

Q: Because I see it says academic dishonesty not did not occur and
I'll note-
11
12
Q: what was I guilty of? What am I being warned about?
13
A: in the letter from Mr. Burns, it says in the matter of Section R
14
you accepted responsibility for the disconnection of the computer in
15
the Boyd's School of Law library.
16
Q: okay but we're not talking about the computer thing anymore,
17
we're talking about the the Tratos thing right? because that's what the
18
first paragraph is dealing with.
19
Judge McElroy: so what's the question?
20
Q: because I reported section R, so my question is what in Section
21
whatever the first section I guess section P although he's got Q's and
22
then he's got, so I don't know what he's talking about. but somehow this
23
first section deals with the professor Tratos thing, yet there seems to be
24
this language of assaulting, striking, threatening, or causing physical
25
harm to another? and so later on down the page he goes in the matter of
26
section P, I recommend the following sanction. Now, this is after
27
saying academic dishonesty did not occur and you know elsewhere in
28
238/433
this letter talked about how this is an informal resolution, yada, yada.
But, the point is-
Judge McElroy:What is the question?
Q: that he is recommending this sanction, and the sanction relates
to Section P, which is a assaulting, striking, or threatening. the only-
Judge McElroy: What is the question of this witness?
Q: Who was assaulted, striked, or threatened? The guy who got
all these emails? Was he assaulted, striked, or threatened?
ms.
Judge McElroy: Ask a question. if she knows.
Q: who was assaulted, striked, or threatened?
10
11
A: I believe that it was determined that the tone of your emails to

Professor Tratos could be considered threatening.
12
Q: does it say that anywhere in here in his report?
13
A: I don't see that specifically in this report.
14
Q: Because I know it is not your report, its his report right?
15
A: that's right.
16
Q: Okay, and it doesn't say anywhere in here-
17
Judge McElroy: you have got two minutes to finish up your cross-
18
19
examination.
Q: It doesn't say anything about me assaulting, striking or
20
threatening professor Tratos, right? and when I reported this to the
21
State Bar my language in Exhibit 1, page 25 is-
22
23
24
Q: My question is what does this say, even. what are you saying I
25
did and what are you saying you found me guilty of?
26
Ms. Kagan: objection, lack of personal knowledge.
27
28
239/433
Mr. Coughlin: that's never been sure.
Judge McElroy: this is not a letter that she's written.
Mr. Coughlin: she's the Dean of Student Affairs.
Judge McElroy: do you have another question?
Q: was I found out of this academic dishonesty investigation was I
found guilty of anything or was I cleared of any academic dishonesty?

A: Mr. burn's letter says after an investigation it appears that the
7
8
ms.
9
matter of your remarks has been informally resolved between you and
your instructors. in addition it appears that academic dishonesty did
not occur.
10
Judge McElroy: what's the next question.
11
Q: So, if I told the bar that I was cleared of any academic
12
dishonesty wrongdoing, would that be accurate?
13
14
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let her answer the
15
question.
Mr. Coughlin: I thought that was the whole point of this as Judge
16
17
McElroy spelled it out earlier was whether or not I accurately reported
18
this.
19
20
21
22
Ms. Kagan: objection, first of all the witness doesn't even know
what Mr. Coughlin reported to the Bar regarding this incident.
Mr. Coughlin: She doesn't need to know. she's not the witness. just
let her be that.
23
Judge McElroy: what's the question?
24
Q: If I told the State Bar, any State Bar in relation to this
25
incident as far as academic dishonesty goes I was cleared. would that be
26
accurate?
27
A: yes.
28
240/433
Q: That would be accurate?
A: Yes.
Q: Let me read you these statements and you can tell me whether
or not these are accurate. these are what's at issue, this is what I said to
the California Bar-
Judge McElroy: please quit editorializing and ask a question.
Q: Okay, I'm asking you are these accurate. this is an
investigation that arose out of a summer school class I took from
ms.
9
10
11
professor Mark Tratos, that's accurate right?

A: yes.
Q: okay when this academic dishonesty investigation was started
what did you think I had done? what were you charging me with?
12
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Speculation.
13
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection, it has been-
14
Ms. Kagan: Lack of personal knowledge-
15
Judge McElroy: gone over ad nauseum.
16
Mr. Coughlin: so, I'm never actually going to get told what they
17
18
thought I did?
Judge McElroy: The truth is you got the best answer you could
19
from her. she said that there was not academic honest dishonesty
20
found. ok I mean how much more do you want? And that was the
21
question in terms of the State Bar so.
22
Q: okay so when I write in my letter to the State Bar, I wrote after
23
the Student Judicial Affairs Officer conducted a full investigation
24
interviewing several students the matter was resolved with a finding
25
that no academic dishonesty took place on my part, that's accurate
26
right?
27
A: yes.
28
241/433
Q: Can you tell me what it was that made you think there was
academic dishonesty present in the first place such that you brought an
investigation for it?
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
A: have to read my notes. I don't specifically recall and I don't

want to misstate anything.
Q: but would that be included somewhere? Would you have
written that down somewhere?
A: No.
Judge McElroy: Any other questions?
Q: can you tell me why you thought I had a substance abuse
problem?
A: Because of your erratic behavior, because of the emails that you
12
sent to faculty and staff, because of the various incidents that I had
13
referred to earlier, it led me to believe that you had some type of a
14
problem.
15
16
Q: so does anyone who has any problem with any of your faculty
or your staff have a substance problem?
17
A: No.
18
Q: Do they have some type of problem?
19
Ms. Kagan: objection, vague.
20
21
Q: would you say that if I was reporting this moving a computer
22
incident to a State Bar that I would have been accurate for me to have
23
told the bar, given what you know about this situation as I did in my
24
application, would you say that this is an accurate description of what
25
took place when in exhibit 1, believe it's page thirteen, under this
26
scholastic discipline section I said to have you ever been dropped,
27
28
242/433
suspended, expelled or otherwise disciplined by any school for any
reason other than for academic performance and I'll note that-
Judge McElroy: please no editorializing.
Q: okay, and I say I was fined $100 by UNLV for moving a
computer monitor and keyboard 10 feet to attach to my computer for an
hour, dot, dot, dot. is that accurate?
Ms. Kagan: I request the whole sentence be read.
Judge McElroy: please read the whole sentence, Mr., yes, its your
ms.
9
10
11
12
question.
Q: To attach my computer for an hour in December 1st, 02
University of Nevada Las Vegas.
A: I can't testify to the distance that you moved the computer
because I didn't see it.
13
Q: but we know it was in the same room right?
14
A: according to Mr. Wright's memo that we read earlier yes it was
15
16
17
in the same room.

Q: ok, so it's accurate in every way except you are not sure exactly
how many feet it was moved, but it was moved in the same room.
18
Ms. Kagan: objection, misstates her testimony.
19
Q: Can you tell me if this is accurate or not? besides how many
20
feet it was moved? Is that what it comes down to, how many feet it was
21
moved?
22
A: this statement is accurate with the exception of I can not
23
testify to the distance that you moved the computer because it's not
24
stated in Mr. Wright's note to me and I did not see it myself.
25
Q: Okay, but we can say it was in the same room?
26
A: Yes.
27
Judge McElroy: okay what's the next question.
28
243/433
1
2
Q: when when was I told that I was going to pass the cyber law
course?
A: I don't know.
Q: Okay, but it wasn't for a while right? because we didn't even
get this letter from-
Judge McElroy: her answers was I don't know. what's the next
8
ms.
9
question?
Q: Mr. Burns' letter is from November 27, 2001. Would have I been
able to have known if I passed the course or not before then?
10
Ms. Kagan: objection, speculation.
11
Q: ok, if you can answer.
12
A: I don't know.
13
Q: Wouldn't his report need to have been issued before you could
14
determine whether or not I was going to graduate? My passing the
15
course and graduating was contingent upon the outcome of this
16
report?
17
18
19
A: not entirely, no. what if you didn't pass some of your other
courses.
Q: ok but aside from that. Assuming I passed every other course
20
and this was the only course still out there, was this what was holding
21
up? you couldn't have given me a grade until this was out right?
22
23
Judge McElroy: And speculation. next question its sustained.
24
Q: this came out November 27 2001, right?
25
A: Right.
26
Q: Would I have received a grade in the cyber law course prior to
27
the resolution of this matter?
28
244/433
A: You would not have received a grade in the cyber law class
until you had submitted a paper to Professor Tratos for his review and
for him to grade. I don't know when he received your final paper, which
he based your grade upon.
5
6
Q: did I turn in a final paper to Professor Tratos or did he grade

the draft that I turned?
A: I don't know the answer to that question.
ms.
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: okay I'm going to overrule the objection and she
has said she doesn't know the answer to that question so let's move on to
something she knows.
Q: that's a tough one. did Mark Tratos request contact information
12
for any other students whose papers he had lost in the cyber law
13
course? For instance, Jessica Wolfe's?
14
15
Judge McElroy: okay I'm gonna go ahead and let you and ask that
16
17
question and if she can answer it.

A: I don't remember him asking me for contact information on
18
another student. I don't remember anything in connection with Jessica
19
Wolfe.
20
Judge McElroy: so let's ask the next question.
21
Q: ok do you recall seeing in the bates stamped copy of my file that
22
you gave me, included with the other emails to Professor Tratos, the
23
first one was from Professor Tratos to you or your assistant. Do you
24
recall him asking for emails for Zach Coughlin and Jessica Wolf?
25
Ms. Kagan: objection, which exhibit is Mr. Coughlin referring to.
26
Mr. Coughlin: I'm referring to a document Dean Smith gave me.
27
Judge McElroy: do you have it here?
28
245/433
Judge McElroy: well then, don't ask about it. what's the next
3
4
5
question. I sustain the objection.

Mr. Coughlin: So, she can ask about Stemple papers that are not
here, but-
Judge McElroy: Don't argue with me, okay? Next question?
Q: Do you know who Jessica Wolf is?
A: Yes.
ms.
9
10
11
12
Q: Did she take cyber law?

Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him ask that
question.
A: I would have to look at the course roster to be absolutely
13
certain that she took that course or her transcript and I don't have
14
either one of those documents.
15
Judge McElroy: five more minutes.
16
Mr. Coughlin: I'm done.
17
Judge McElroy: okay thank you. any redirect?
18
Ms. Kagan: No.
19
Judge McElroy: you may step down.
20
Ms. Kagan: may we take a two minute recess?
21
Judge McElroy: yes, two minutes.
22
Court: back on the record.
23
Ms. Kagan: The Bar calls Officer Won Cho to stand.
24
(The oath was administered to Officer Won Cho.)
25
26
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Officer Cho, are you currently employed.
27
28
246/433
A: yes I am at the Las Vegas metropolitan Police Department, and
I have been there going on eight years as a police officer in community
policing.
Q: do you recall an incident that took place-
Judge McElroy: Overruled, she hasn't even asked the question.
Mr. Coughlin: His whole point in being here. What's the relevance
8
ms.
9
10
11
in going into this?

Judge McElroy: she's putting on her case.
Mr. Coughlin: But we had a clear idea, on the last point, why we
were going after that.
Judge McElroy: I have made my ruling. if you continue to
12
interrupt me, I will ask you to leave the court room and the witness can
13
testify without you being present. do not interrupt and when I make a
14
ruling that's it.
15
16
17
Q: so do you recall an incident in October of 2001 where you were

involved in the arrest of Zachary Coughlin?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
18
Mr. Coughlin: your honor?
19
Q: And how do you recall that incident?
20
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, Your Honor, can I ask a question of you?
21
Officer Cho: Sigh.
22
Judge McElroy: yes, what is the objection.
23
Mr. Coughlin: well it's not an objection, its a question.
24
Judge McElroy: No. I'm not going to allow you to ask questions.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
26
Judge McElroy: you need to proceed in a legal manner-
27
Officer Cho: Sigh.
28
247/433
1
2
Judge McElroy: that's raising objections-and with a legal

objection.
Mr. Coughlin: okay.
Q: Officer Cho, so how do you recall that incident?
A: I remember-
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry, objection, relevancy-
Officer Cho: Sigh.
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Overruled. I've made my ruling. Let's move on to

the next question.
10
Mr. Coughlin: I am not arguing your ruling, Your Honor, I am
11
just wondering for the flow of the trial, with the last point we dealt
12
with it helped me because you spelled out what we were looking for,
13
and that was whether or not I reported accurately to the State Bar, so
14
what I'm trying to do is focus my mind on what are we looking for here-
15
Judge McElroy: Allow him to testify and if you feel that there's a
16
problem afterward you can ask the whole thing be stricken as
17
irrelevant. right now let's ask the question.
18
Q: Officer Cho, how do you recall that incident?
19
A: Can you explain?
20
Q: let me let me go back for a minute.
21
A: I'm sorry.
22
Q: that's okay. do you recognize the applicant in this matter
23
Zachary Coughlin?
24
A: yes, I do.
25
Q: how do you recognize him?
26
A: We made contact with them in approximately 2001.
27
28
248/433
1
2
3
Q: can you explain that contact that you had with Mr. Coughlin,
back in 2001?
A: yes, I was working the Las Vegas Strip on bike patrol at the
time. I was riding with my sergeant that day. riding south bound, I
looked over towards the left and I noticed a security officer running
after Mr. Coughlin. there was another police officer that was running
with the security officer after Mr. Coughlin. so I road down to assist
and we got Mr. Coughlin into custody. we continuously verbally told
ms.
him we're police officers and to stop. he didn't listen to us. he turned
around, kept running. on the strip we don't wear regular uniforms, we
10
wear bright bright canary yellow uniforms that says metro police on
11
there, so it's highly visible on there. he continuously kept running so
12
myself and I think it was Officer Jordan tackled Mr. Coughlin to the
13
ground and as he got to the ground he was lying prone. he put his arms
14
in into his body and he would not cooperate with us. it took
15
approximately four officers to basically get his arms to his side and
16
then finally restrain them. once he was restrained I remember one of
17
the officers asking him why are you running, what's wrong with you
18
and he basically repeated why are you running what's wrong with you?
19
he asked again, what's your name and Mr. Coughlin asked the officer
20
what's your name, and just kept repeating what the officer had told
21
him. as of that time I basically left with my sergeant.
22
Q: were you present when Mr. Coughlin was asked his name?
23
A: Yes I was.
24
Q: And what did he respond to that if you recall.
25
A: what is your name? he just kept repeating what the officers
26
were asking him.
27
28
249/433
1
2
3
Q: Do you know how, was his name actually identified at some

point?
A: I think one of the officers found his identification later on
that's what I saw on the declaration, but I didn't see an identification
and I didn't know what his name was. but I also do remember, I
remember what the officer stating at that time, because I think one of
the other, another officer had gotten a subpoena for the case, and I
remember none of us got a subpoena for it and that officer wasn't the
ms.
primary officer either and I remember the primary officer saying to us
he would have never gotten arrested on that day but he spent so much
10
of our time and we couldn't identify him, so that's the only reason why
11
he got arrested.
12
13
14
Q: let me ask, this is something that happened in 2001, how do you

recall this incident now that we're in 2007?
A: because, when I make contact with people, a lot of people tell us
15
how much they know the law. I remember him saying I know the law,
16
I'm a student becoming an attorney and I didn't believe him. I
17
remember talking to one of the officers, reference that, saying you
18
know we wouldn't do anything, you know, something like that going to
19
another state or doing anything like that with our profession, why
20
would he do something like that? So, when I got this for subpoena for
21
this I was actually surprised.
22
Q: let me ask you also, one more question?
23
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry. Can we clarify what we wouldn't do
24
25
26
anything like that means? I didn't understand. what's do?

Judge McElroy: First of all, you can clarify it on crossexamination. that's how we proceed in this matter. what's the question?
27
28
250/433
Q: Officer Cho, would you characterize Mr. Coughlin as resisting
arrest in this matter or was he very helpful with the police and listen
to everything the police would tell him?

A: More or less if he was helpful with the officers, I don't think he
4
5
would have been arrested. I don't think he would have gone to jail .
Ms. Kagan: No more questions.
Judge McElroy: cross-examination?
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: hello Officer Cho.
ms.
A: hello.
Q: Can you clarify what that last point was about we wouldn't
10
11
have done that with our profession if we went somewhere?
12
A: okay, like for , my wife and I went to Utah last week. we got
13
pulled over. I was cooperative with the officers knowing that I'm an
14
officer and what I meant was that anywhere I go, knowing my
15
profession, I'm gonna be cooperative with everybody that pretty much
16
does the job that I do. I think being an attorney is a high profession just
17
like being a doctor being a police officer, or firefighters. we normally
18
get the respect when we make contact with them. that's what I meant
19
by it.
20
Judge McElroy: So, what's the next question?
21
Q: and you felt I was disrespecting you?
22
A: I didn't only feel that, all the other officers did. when somebody
23
is, the number one thing that we learned in the Academy is the most
24
dangerous thing of anybody's body is this, the hands, because you could
25
have either a gun, a knife, or whatever . we'd like to see the hands.
26
What you did when you were lying prone and none of us was on top of
27
you,so you know, it wasn't like-
28
251/433
Q: After I was tackled?
A: well after you were tackled, we were on top of you, and then we
moved away, and we said put your arms behind your back. I remember
one arm being held, the other are being held by another officer because
we know well enough that your arm is not going to move when
somebody's on top of you. we kept telling you to put your arms, take
your arms out, let me see your hands, let me see your hands. you didn't
do that.
ms.
9
10
Q: What did I do?

A: you kept your arms in, in your torsal area.
Q: All right. Officer Cho, you recall me ever making a statement
11
about I was putting my hands behind my back? You guys said
12
something like what are you doing and I said I was putting my hands
13
behind my back?
14
A: I don't recall that no
15
Q: okay because in this police report on page 65 it is Exhibit 65,
16
number one about halfway down the page beginning with: Officer Cho,
17
Officer C. Jordan badge number and myself gave chase and tackled
18
Coughlin as we were trying to take Coughlin into custody he again
19
ignored orders to stop resisting and put his hands behind his back.
20
A: I didn't even write that, so?
21
Q: ok but that means I put my hands behind my back, right?
22
A: i don't remember him putting his hands behind his back.
23
24
Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation and Mr. Coughlin is testifying

at this point.
25
Mr. Coughlin: I am just reading the page.
26
A: I don't remember him putting his hands behind his back.
27
28
252/433
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: I overrule the objection. he doesn't remember.

what's the next question.
Q: ok can you tell me what it means in this police report when it
says he put his, or it says and put his hands behind his back?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lack of personal knowledge.
Judge McElroy: sustained. Why don't you ask him-
Mr. Coughlin: You have the report, Officer, right?
A: I have the report somewhere out there, yes.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: No, no, it's right there in those books for you.
A: Oh.
10
Judge McElroy: Please look at exhibit 65, first page.
11
Q: we're talking about halfway down the page.
12
A: Okay, I am looking. it says stop resisting and put his hands
13
behind his back. I think the way he worded, it because we were asking
14
you to stop resisting and put your hands behind your back. When I
15
looked at this report-
16
Q: you didn't write this, right?
17
A: this is the first time I've seen it when I got it. when I read this
18
report it didn't make sense to me on certain parts but you know what,
19
when I now read it, that's how I remember a lot of it, you know so that's
20
what it basically meant.
21
Judge McElroy: so what's the next question?
22
Q: okay do you remember anybody's saying why did you put your
23
hands behind your back like that? we thought you were reaching for a
24
gun in your belt or something and my saying no I was putting my
25
hands behind my back so you guys would know I didn't have anything
26
and you could do what you needed to do?
27
A: No, because you had your hands like this.
28
253/433
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: Record should indicate he is putting his hands in

front of his chest.
Mr. Coughlin: right, but here it says-
A: it took about four officers to finally pry-
Mr. Coughlin: He wouldn't stop resisting-
Judge McElroy: Wait, you can not talk over the witness.
A: it took approximately all of us to pry your arms away from to
your side basically to put you finally into handcuffs. I remember that.
ms.
9
Q: Does it say that here?

Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance
10
A: Ha. Sigh.
11
Q: You are just remembering that.
12
13
A: I always believe that if you didn't write it you didn't do it but I
14
15
16
17
didn't write this.

Q: ok so it does in the report that I was putting my hands behind
my back, right?
18
A: no, it says we were asking you. It says right here: stop
19
resisting- Oh boy. and put. stop resisting and put his hands behind
20
his back. Sigh. I think he just worded it wrong.
21
22
Q: You said I wouldn't have been arrested had I done something
23
quite simple, right?
24
A: yes.
25
Q: Because I didn't do anything enough to get arrested for?
26
27
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him ask that question.
28
254/433
A: ok we just like anything else, just like a traffic citation we go
by weather citing the person or not citing the person, discretion. In this
case, since we work the strip when we have tourists and stuff like that
we go by discretion. Most of the people that we pull over on the Las
Vegas Strip are mostly out-of-towners. we don't cite them. That's just a
courtesy. If you would have cooperated with us, I remember Officer
Jordan stating he probably wouldn't have arrested you. You wasted so
much of our time and he had to basically work on to getting your
ms.
9
10
identification somehow, and that's the reason why he arrested you.

Judge McElroy: okay, so whats the next question?
Q: if you handcuffed someone, would it be very hard to get their
11
wallet and identification if you have them handcuffed and you're able
12
to do what you want?
13
14
Q: Would that take that much time?
15
16
A: Go ahead.
17
Q: overruled means you answer it, right?
18
Judge McElroy: Ask it again.
19
Q: If you handcuff someone, how much time does it take to get
20
21
their wallet and identify them?

A: okay, here's the thing, though, it took us a long time basically. I
22
don't need. A second could be five minutes. five minutes could be 10
23
minutes. Okay, like I said I remember all of us, all of us trying to get
24
your hands behind your back and before getting your wallet, we asked
25
you several questions. I remember the officers asking you several
26
questions and you continuously spoke back, and basically repeated the
27
questions officers asked you.
28
255/433
1
2
Q: But, I must have done more than that because we talked about
the law and stuff. That, this. we talked about the things that, that-
Judge McElroy: Ask question.
Q: ok, we didn't just talk about, I didn't just repeat things, did I?
because we talked about the law and things that made you later say I
wouldn't go anywhere and act like that, right?
7
8
ms.
9
A: well this was later on with the officers talking. this is after
you've already been arrested. we spoke about that.
Q: ok, so I'm just trying to understand. I don't understand how it
takes so long to get identification.
10
11
Q: what kind of stuff did we talk about the law? what kind of
12
13
14
15
16
stuff are we talking about? Were we speaking about the law and?
A: I just remember you saying that you were an attorney student
and you knew the law. that's basically what I remember.
Q: Something like that. something like is this a Terry stop? or did
you have some sort of you know cause to arrest-
17
A: I don't remember it exactly. I don't remember exactly.
18
Q: but you don't like it when people say stuff like that, do you?
19
20
21
Q: Well earlier you said that you didn't like it when people try to
22
tell you how to do your job?
23
A: I never said I don't like it.
24
Q: what was that comment about I wouldn't go to another town
25
26
and do that?
A: Sigh.
27
28
256/433
Q: You said I wouldn't go on vacation and tell another cop. you
didn't say I wouldn't go on vacation and tell a lawyer, which is more
analogous to what's going on here, because it's not cop and a cop, right?
Judge McElroy: Okay, enough already, I am sustaining the
objection at this point.
A: I don't get what you are getting at.
Q: You said I wouldn't go and talk to a cop that way on vacation,
8
ms.
9
10
11
would you go and talk to a lawyer that way?

Judge McElroy: I am sustaining the objection.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative, speculative, irrelevant.
Judge McElroy: No more question, okay. You have two more
minutes, ask relevant questions.
12
A: Sigh.
13
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know what's relevant about this entire
14
thing? I reported it so what's relevant? Why have we spent-
15
Judge McElroy: Your behavior.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Spent Officer Cho's time to bring him here to ask
17
18
19
20
21
him about something that'sJudge McElroy: it's part of her case in terms of good moral
character. move on.
Q: so, Officer, I was running when when I first saw officers, I was
already running, right?
22
A: yes.
23
Q: Okay and he said he was running and then he saw us and he
24
kept running.
25
A: Yes.
26
Q: what would be the opposite of that?
27
A: What do you mean the opposite?
28
257/433
Q: To stop on a dime?
Judge McElroy: Sustained, the question is finished. what's the
next question.
Q: if someone's already running and an officer say stop, that
6
7
person isn't going to stop on a dime, right? I mean that's not like
humanly possible right? to stop that fast?

ms.
9
10
Q: How fast could someone stop if they're running?
11
12
Judge McElroy: Sustained, its irrelevant.
13
Q: If someone's running and you told him to stop-
14
Judge McElroy: why are you asking a question that Ive already
15
said you cannot answer? you cannot question.
16
Mr. Coughlin: I am asking a different.
17
Judge McElroy: You can't, it's not, it's the same. ask another
18
question that has not been sustained okay in terms of an objection.
19
Q: if someone is running and is being pursued by some other
20
civilians and a police officer sees this and says stop running, would you
21
expect that it would take the person a certain length of feet or time to
22
go from an all out out run to stopping?
23
Ms. Kagan: objection, irrelevant.
24
Judge McElroy: sustained. what's the next question.
25
Q: how far did I run after you would have expected that the
26
reasonable person would have been able to slow their original pace and
27
stop?
28
258/433
A: The distance you ran, you ran from the Polo Towers, from
where I saw you to where I stopped you, which is the shopping center, is
going to be approximately, and that's Officer Jordan chasing after you
along with the security officer chasing after you would be
approximately 25 to 30 yards and what you have stated was that I
remember Officer Jordan asking you about running and stuff like that
later on and you have stated something about the movie theater. you
were sneaking into the movie theaters and that's the reason why you
ms.
thought security was chasing you because you were, you don't pay to go
into the movie theaters but you're watching movies without paying for
10
it going into theater. what I didn't understand was your running
11
southbound from the polo towers on towards the shopping center. the
12
movie theater is at the South. you were actually running towards the
13
movie theater. that's what I couldn't understand because there's no
14
movie theater on the north of where you were running from. that's
15
what I didn't understand. so I remember you know that the specific
16
area you're talking about so you ran approximately twenty-five to
17
thirty, thirty yards.
18
19
Q: from being at a complete run, a complete sprint, originally, to

hearing stop, to stopping and being tackled?
20
A: You didn't stop.
21
Judge McElroy: What's the question.
22
Q: Right before I was tackled did I put my hands in the air?
23
A: No, you went to the ground.
24
Judge McElroy: what's the next question.
25
Q: so when I was tackled was I still running when I was tackled?
26
A: how could you still be running? No, you went to the ground.
27
Q: right before I was tackled?
28
259/433
A: right before you were-
Q: Right before impact? was I running or had I stopped running?
A: I don't remember, all I remember was you were still running
and I tackled you while you were still running.
Q: Wait is that you don't remember or that I was still running?
A: I don't remember you just stopping and doing this.
Q: you don't remember that all? I'm confused because one second
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
ago you don't, he said I don't remember if you were still running, and
then in the next sentence he said you were still running and I tackled
you.
A: I'm confused because you're changing the words around. you
were still running when I tackled you. you did not stop and do this.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so it's clear to the court-
13
A: I would never have tackled you if you would have-
14
Judge McElroy: You did not stop and raise your hands. you were
15
tackled while you were running, okay? I don't need to hear any more,
16
move on.
17
18
Q: didn't you just say that you were not sure whether or not I was
running before I got tackled?
19
20
Judge McElroy: sustained, no more questions in this area. four
21
o'clock.
22
Q: Do you recall an officer making fun of my shoes?
23
A: no, I don't.
24
Q: do you recall an officer making any jokes at my expense?
25
A: No, I don't.
26
Q: Do you recall a woman officer who was there?
27
A: Black? White? Hispanic?
28
260/433
Q: Yeah. A black woman officer. Who was that?
A: That was my sergeant at the time.
Q: what's her name?
A: Goode. she is a lieutenant now.
Q: You don't recall her making jokes about my shoes and the way I
ran?
A: No.
Q: Do you recall her taking a flashlight and putting it five inches
ms.
9
10
11
from my face and leaving it there for several minutes?

Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer the
question.
12
A: No, I don't.
13
Q: did you play football in high school?
14
A: yes, I did
15
16
Judge McElroy: Too late.
17
Q: You played football? A sport where you tackled people a lot,
18
right?
19
20
A: Ha.
21
Q: That didn't have anything? You wouldn't have a propensity to
22
tackle people, right? Its not like you are living out high school football
23
again, right?
24
Judge McElroy: I have sustained the objection.
25
A: Ha.
26
Q: that's not it, right?
27
Judge McElroy: ask a new question.
28
261/433
Q: what position did you play?
A: Ha.
Judge McElroy: Sustained. no more questions in this area.
Mr. Coughlin: Doesn't it show a propensity towards tackling
people?
Judge McElroy: it's sustained. move on. don't argue with me.
Mr. Coughlin: well, I don't even know why we're talking to
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Officer Cho in the first place, soJudge McElroy: So then why don't you just quit asking questions
about it? Why are you emphasizing?
Mr. Coughlin: can you tell me why and maybe then if I have any
important questions I'll ask themJudge McElroy: No, you are an attorney. You are a Nevada
attorney, you should know better.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I am a Nevada or Novota?
16
Judge McElroy: Okay, anyway are you finished with your cross-
17
examination? I'm going to say you have. Do you have any redirect?
18
Ms. Kagan: No, your honor.
19
Judge McElroy: Okay, you may step down. Let's see if we have any
20
21
more witnesses. You can go.

(End)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
262/433
5/10/07 Transcript:
Judge McElroy: We're on the record this is a matter Zachary
Coughlin case number 06-M-13755 and today's date is May 10 th, 2007 and
it is the third day the hearing and are you ready to call your next
witness?
Ms. Kagan: State Bar calls Mike Toms to the stand.
(The oath was administered to Michael Wayne Toms.)
8
ms.
9
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Morning Mr. Toms, are you currently employed?
A: Yes.
10
Q: Where?
11
A: at the Sacramento County District Attorney laboratory of
12
Forensic Services, my title is supervising criminologist
13
Q: How long have you been employed as supervising criminologist
14
A: For approximately a month now.
15
Q: What about before that before that.
16
A: I was a criminologist for six years at the same laboratory. Prior
17
to that I was a criminologist for six years at the Santa Clara county
18
laboratory forensic services and prior to that I worked for a private
19
forensic laboratory known as Drug Detection Laboratory for three-and-
20
a-half years.
21
Q: Do you have any special certifications or degrees.
22
A: Well I have a bachelor's of science in forensic science and
23
minor in chemistry from Sacramento State University I've completed
24
court-
25
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
26
27
28
263/433
A: I've completed courses from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the society of
forensic toxicologists the University of Indiana or of Santa Cruz
dealing with the effects pharmacology of the various drugs.
Q: In your position currently, what are your job duties.
A: Well currently supervised 10 forensic analysts that analyzed
Blood, urine, biological tissues and fluids and solids or substances for
the presence of toxic substances or illicit compounds.
ms.
9
10
11
Q: What about in 2003 what were your job duties then.

A: In 2003 I was working with the same laboratory I was aMr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevance if we're worried
about time I don't see where or what we're doing with this.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: All right. Can I go on and on with stuff and not
14
15
16
show you what I am doing with it forJudge McElroy: You can do whatever you want when your turn
comes up, which is known as cross-examination.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, good. Just as long as I can.
18
Judge McElroy: You are a lawyer, you should know better.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, I do know that.
20
Judge McElroy: And I am beginning to find that-
21
Mr. Coughlin: Just as long as I can go on and on with stuff where
22
23
24
25
we don't know where its going and take up a lot of time that wayJudge McElroy: My sense is you have no idea how to act like a
lawyer, but let's go on.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I did go to UNLV, so.
26
27
28
264/433
A: Prior to that I was a criminologist and I worked in the forensic
toxicology section of laboratory which also included the alcohol section
as well.
Q: Okay. I'd like you to turn to what in the exhibit binder is
marked as Exhibit 68, it's a two-page exhibit could you look at both
pages please? do you recognize Exhibit 68?
A: yes.
ms.
9
A: It's a toxicology report and the alcohol analysis report from the
laboratory forensic services of Sacramento County.
10
Q: can you explain what's contained on page 1 of Exhibit 68?
11
A: Yes, it's a toxicology report by criminologist Lisa Caughlin and
12
reviewed by criminologist Debby Henry. The results of the testing that
13
were performed included the presence of 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC and
14
hydrocodone.
15
Q: Can you explain what those two substances are?
A: 11-nor-
16
9-carboxy-THC is an inactive metabolite of marijuana from use of
17
marijuana and hydrocodone is also commonly known as Vicodin, its a
18
prescription narcotic for pain relief.
19
20
21
Q: Is there anything else that 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC could be

other than marijuana?
A: Well it's actually a metabolite of marijuana. That's what the
22
body converts it into so the person would have had to have ingested
23
marijuana at some point in time for their urine to contain this
24
compound.
25
Q: Can you tell from this report when the person ingested
26
marijuana?
27
A: No.
28
265/433
Q: Do you have any idea from your own experience what-
Q: When a person in order to test with these substances detected
and confirmed, of the amount of marijuana that someone would have to
ingest?
7
8
ms.
A: No, you wouldn't be able to tell the amount all you could do is
talk about the range of time that a person possibly used within.
Q: What is that range of time?
A: Typically marijuana, this particular compound, 11-nor-9-
10
carboxy-THC, can be detected one to three days after use if a person is a
11
chronic user then it can be as much as 60 days if they use it chronically.
12
Ms. Kagan: I have no further questions at this time.
13
Judge McElroy: Cross-examination?
14
Q: You say 60 days?
15
A: 60 days would be an extreme for somebody who chronically
16
17
18
19
uses the drug.

Q: Mr. Toms, what would be someone you say one to three days for
someone who has used it maybe what like once or twice?
A: An infrequent user to use it maybe once a week smaller small
20
doses depends on your body chemistry t-this this particular compounds
21
are lipophilic drug means that it likes to store in fat in the body fat so
22
it can be released later on so if you're a heavy user then it could store in
23
in your system for a long period of time.
24
25
26
Q: You said someone would have had to ingest marijuana, can you
tell me what that means?
A: They could have eaten it or smoked.
27
28
266/433
1
2
3
Q: Could they have been in the same room as people smoking

marijuana?
A: At the level that was detected in this particular sample there
has been studies that show passive inhalation as a possibility somebody
could have a level of that but the scenario that was performed was
unrealistic, it was several people sitting in a car sized area, and there
was so much smoke-
8
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: A car, you say?

Judge McElroy: Please don't disrupt an answer. Let him finish
his answer.
A: There was so much smoke pumped into the area that the
11
participants had to wear goggles so to get these this type of a level
12
that's a pretty unrealistic scenario.
13
Q: Why did they wear goggles?
14
A: Because it was so much smoke pumped into the room that they
15
weren't smoking that they weren't actively like puffing on they were
16
just sitting in the room.
17
Q: Would they've gone blind if they hadn't worn goggles?
18
A: No but their eyes were irritated and that's why they they
19
20
21
requested goggles.
Q: Would their eyes have gotten red? Is that what you mean by
irritated?
22
A: yes certainly.
23
Q: Okay but there's nothing more substantial than that?
24
A: No I would say thats everything.
25
Q: So maybe wearing goggles is a little melodramatic?
26
A: No, it's actually important to know that because it lets you
27
28
267/433
know how much smoke was piled into this small area, which makes it
the unrealistic scenario that I spoke of.
Q: And these people were Californians?
A: I have no idea.
Judge McElroy: Overruled. It's already come in, the answer he had
7
8
ms.
9
no idea whether they were Californians.

Q: Can you tell me would these people wear goggles if were
cigarettes being smoked in the car?
10
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer.
11
A: I don't know if there was cigarettes being smoked in the car but
12
13
it wasn't mentioned in the scientific study so I would say no.

Q: That's not what I, I'm not sure you understand my question. I'm
14
asking let's say there is not marijuana in the car and they're just for
15
some reason they're testing cigarettes or something and there's several
16
people in a car and some of them are smoking. Would you have
17
provided goggles in that case.
18
19
Judge McElroy: (laughing) I am going to go ahead and let him, for
20
21
the record.
A: Well if they put enough smoke in there that would irritate the
22
eyes of the people and they requested goggles I would I would tend to
23
give them goggles yes.
24
25
26
27
Q: Ok so it's maybe nothing specific to marijuana that you need

goggle, it's just smoke?
A: No. Irritation to the eyes, it was just a way for me to describe to
you how much smoke was in this confined space.
28
268/433
Q: Ok and can you tell me what this 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC is? Is
that just saying there's this chemical in this person's urine, or is that
saying there's this level of chemical? Does it specify a level?
4
5
6
A: Not on this report but I did bring the chromatogram that has
the quantitative value.
Mr. Coughlin: Ok, was this chromatogram propounded earlier to
opposing counsel? Because if not I'd like to object on the basis of
hearsay.
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: What's your question? You are the one that asked
the question and you got an answer.
Mr. Coughlin: And he responded referring to a document
11
presumably that I've never been provided with a chromatogram and as
12
far as I can tell it hasn't been propounded, it hasn't been put into
13
evidence, and it hasn't been designated as an exhibit.
14
Judge McElroy: Do you have that document with you?
15
A: Yes. (sound of papers being passed)
16
Mr. Coughlin: I object to entering that document at this stage in
17
the trial.
18
Judge McElroy: You opened up the question.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Can I come up with documents and witnesses out of
20
21
22
the blue right now would that be all right too?

Judge McElroy: If the State Bar prosecutor brought it up, you
certainly could.
23
A: Do you want me to give you the complete packet or just the one?
24
Judge McElroy: What are you referring to, what did you?
25
26
Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't we ask another question then?
27
Are you going to withdraw that question?
28
269/433
Mr. Coughlin: Sure.
Judge McElroy: Okay, the question is withdrawn.
Mr. Coughlin: I have nothing further.
Judge McElroy: Okay, do you have anything further?
Ms. Kagan: No.
Judge McElroy: Thank you may step down.
Mr. Coughlin: Good use of time, good use time and money. That's
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
good.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor I would ask that Mr. Coughlin be
refrained from making some remarks (laughs) other than his
questioning.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I asked you a number of times to
refrain from making remarks.
Mr. Coughlin: And I ask that Ms. Kagan be refrained from
14
making remarks and histrionics.
15
Judge McElroy: Okay
16
Mr. Coughlin: Can we? Can we? Thanks. I just don't understand
17
why he's being called. What did that accomplish? It took 30 minutes.
18
Are you getting paid by the witness?
19
Judge McElroy: For the record it's accomplishing you had you had
20
you asserted in your application that you were not under the influence
21
of marijuana right? The State Bar is entitled to bring witnesses that
22
say that you were under the influence of marijuana, it's quite simple.
23
Mr. Coughlin: But that didn't prove, that didn't speak to that at
24
25
26
all. It just spoke to what we already knew.

Judge McElroy: I am not going to argue you can make that in
your closing argument.
27
28
270/433
1
2
3
Mr. Coughlin: We already had marijuana in this report that was

submitted, so what did it accomplish?
Judge McElroy: There should have been a stipulation the parties
did not enter into a stipulation. When parties don't enter into a
stipulation, then the State Bar has to put on all their witnesses as you
do too, okay?
Mr. Coughlin: Could they have just referred to this report?
Judge McElroy: Its hearsay without the witness coming in. So
ms.
9
(laughs) who's your next witness.

Ms. Kagan: I recall Mr. Coughlin.
10
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin please take the stand can.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Can I call Ms. Kagan to the stand?
12
Judge McElroy: She is not on trial you are.
13
Mr. Coughlin: But I'm not asking for her to be on trial. So I won't
14
be able to call her as a witness?
15
Judge McElroy: No.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Seems symmetrical.
17
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin do you understand that you're
18
under oath or do you want to take the oath again?
19
Mr. Coughlin: I understand I am under oath.
20
Judge McElroy: Thank you.
21
By Ms. Kagan:
22
Q: Mr. Coughlin, do you currently consume alcohol?
23
Mr. Coughlin: Objection.
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: I object on basis of confidentiality, privilege-
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: I am not sure I understand your question.
28
271/433
1
2
Q: Do you currently consume alcohol, do you currently drink

alcohol?
A: I am currently drinking water.
Q: Have you had a drink of alcohol in the past year.
Q: when is the last time you had a drink of alcohol?
A: I am not sure.
Q: Isn't it true that you told up the LAP program that the last
ms.
9
time you had alcohol was January 2003?

A: I am not sure.
10
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 71.
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: And this exhibit has been authenticated, or?
14
Ms. Kagan: You stipulated to it, Mr. Coughlin.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I did?
16
Ms. Kagan: No, I'm sorry, you didn't stipulate. It has been
17
admitted into evidence.
18
Mr. Coughlin: At what point did it become admitted?
19
Ms. Kagan: During the first day of trial.
20
Mr. Coughlin: When we went through the exhibits?
21
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Because I don't remember going through this one.
23
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 72 was admitted pages 33 to 57.
24
Ms. Kagan: Turn to page 52.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Okay so we're just doing? Your honor, I'd like to
26
27
stipulate to have the entire exhibit admitted then.

28
272/433
Ms. Kagan: No, your honor.
Judge McElroy: Then Exhibit 72 is admitted into evidence in its
entirety.
Q: are you on Exhibit 72 page 52.
A: yes, I am.
Q: Under section F, it says I've been sober since January 28 th, 2003
7
8
ms.
9
correct?
A: I believe it says that. So what page is that?
Q: Page 52. So let's just get this straight pages 31 through 57 is
that your LAP intake questionnaire?
10
A: I'm not sure well.
11
Ms. Kagan: Well it says page 31 it says LAP intake questionnaire
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
correct?
Mr. Coughlin: Right, but I don't know that you haven't doctored
this or done something else with it.
Ms. Kagan: Well, at the top it says: note, please use with typed
responses on separate pages, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I can't read that. The handwriting is kind of
sloppy.
Ms. Kagan: And its dated 6/28/05, please tell us about yourself
name is Zachary Coughlin, correct?
21
Mr. Coughlin: I think that's what it says.
22
Q: Is that your handwriting Mr. Coughlin?
23
A: I am not sure.
24
Q: Do you think somebody else submitted this on your behalf?
25
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, calls for speculation.
26
27
A: Okay, I'm not sure, Susan.
28
273/433
Q: So, I'd like you to review the document pages 31-
Mr. Coughlin: This confidential questionnaire?
Q: Pages 31 to 57 and let me know if this is something that you
4
5
turned into LAP.

A: Sure I remember LAP made a big deal about how they had this
confidential program, and this confidential questionnaire, and so I
believe I did fill out a confidential questionnaire for their confidential
program at some point, and this might be it.
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
Q: Okay, if you could just review that document first and let me
know whether or not that's something you turned into LAP, and then I
will go on to something else.
A: I'm not sure whether or not this something I turned in to LAP,
Susan.
Q: Okay I'd like you can turn to Exhibit 49 very quickly and
14
Exhibit 49 is entitled Authorization for disclosure and release of
15
information signed Zach Coughlin dated June 24 th, 2005. Is this
16
something that you filled out, Mr. Coughlin?
17
A: I believe so.
18
Q: And this says at the top: I, Zach Coughlin hereby authorize the
19
lawyer assistance program of the State Bar of California (hereinafter
20
LAP) or program to disclose and or obtain information or files or
21
records pertaining to me including information files or records
22
concerning drug/alcohol treatment or use, psychiatric treatment,
23
AIDS/HIV and other communicable communicable diseases, test
24
results and or diagnosis and treatment with the State Bar of California
25
Committee of Bar Examiners, correct?
26
27
A: I'm not sure this says it's good for one year from 6/24/05, so I
guess it's no longer good or?
28
274/433
Q: But was it good at the time that you signed it, Mr. Coughlin.
A: I don't know.
Q: But you did provide this to LAP?
A: Mmmmm. I think so?
Q: And in fact you provided a renewed authorization on April 20 th
of this year didn't you?

A: I'm not sure. I remember you making a lot of threats if I didn't,
7
8
but, very coercive type behavior on your part.

Q: What I'd like to do is turn back to the original Exhibit 72 and
ms.
9
go back to page 52-
10
A: Objection, Your Honor.
11
Judge McElroy: What is the objection?
12
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I just don't see a release for all this
13
information, and its past that-
14
Judge McElroy: Its been released, go ahead. Its overruled.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Its been released?
16
Judge McElroy: The objection is overruled.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Can you tell me where the release is though?
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: So, I don't get to know where the release is?
20
Judge McElroy: No. You need to figure that out on your own.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Do we not need to have a release for that
22
confidential program?
Judge McElroy: I'm not answering the question. I'm not here on
23
24
25
26
trial.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so just let the record state that we don't know
where the release is.
27
28
275/433
1
2
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, are you stating right now that you
didn't provide a release dated April 20th, 2007 to the State Bar.
Judge McElroy: Let's just go ahead with the next question in
5
6
terms ofQ: Now I pointed you to some language on page 52: I've been
sober since January 28th, 2003. Was that a true statement when you
made it, Mr. Coughlin?
ms.
9
A: I'm not sure.

Q: Do you have a date of sobriety?
10
A: I'm not sure.
11
Q: Now, Mr. Coughlin, you testified earlier-
12
Mr. Coughlin: And, can you define what you mean by sobriety?
13
Q: When is the last date you drank alcohol, Mr. Coughlin?
14
Mr. Coughlin: That's what you mean by sobriety?
15
Ms. Kagan: Indeed.
16
Mr. Coughlin: That is your definition of sobriety? I'm not sure.
17
Q: Did you drink alcohol in 2007?
18
A: Not that I remember.
19
20
A: I'm not sure.
21
22
A: I am not sure.
23
Q: Did you drink alcohol- well let me let me go through this for a
24
25
second. You lived atMr. Coughlin: Objection your honor if I tell her I'm not sure and
26
she wants to go year by year, isn't that badgering the witness or
27
repetitive?
28
276/433
Judge McElroy: Not yet.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you drink alcohol in 2004?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, badgering the witness.
Mr. Coughlin: what year was that?
Ms. Kagan: 2004.
Mr. Coughlin: did I do what?
Ms. Kagan: drink alcohol?
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: Can you define to me what you mean by drink

alcohol?
Ms. Kagan: Did you (laughs) you know I am a little flustered. You
have a question about what to drink alcohol means?
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, like, say there's rum raisin ice cream and
there's alcohol in that and you ingest it, is that drinking alcohol?
Ms. Kagan: Well, Mr. Coughlin, do you believe that's drinking
alcohol?
16
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I'm asking you that, Ms. Kagan.
17
Judge McElroy: Okay, she's to ask the questions its direct
18
19
examination, you are not to ask her any question.

Mr. Coughlin: I am trying to understand what she is asking. I
20
don't understand your question, then. I don't know if mouthwash with
21
alcohol in it, if you consume that, and if it seeps into the membranes in
22
your mouth, if that is drinking, I don't know, so.
23
Q: Okay let's go through, so in the past-
24
Mr. Coughlin: Not to say I did that but Id like to know whether or
25
not that amounts to-
26
Q: In that past three years have you consumed Henny beer?
27
A: I don't think so. I am not sure.
28
277/433
Q: In the past four years have you consumed Henny wine?
A: I am not sure.
Q: In the past four years have you smoked or ingested marijuana?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: In the past four years did you ever keep alcohol-
Mr. Coughlin: And I object, Your Honor, on the basis of-
Mr. Coughlin: So, I don't even get to say what the basis is? That's,
ms.
9
that's what's up, right?

Judge McElroy: Sure, what's the basis?
10
Mr. Coughlin: Nah, never mind.
11
Judge McElroy: Okay, next question.
12
Mr. Coughlin: Oh, well, the basis is the Fifth Amendment.
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so I am on the stand, but I don't have a
15
constitutional right.
16
Judge McElroy: No.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Say, if she asked me: did you murder this person? To
18
not incriminate myself. I don't have that constitutional right?
19
Judge McElroy: That's not the question.
20
Mr. Coughlin: But, any question that involves incrimination?
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just wondering if the Fifth Amendment still
23
applies in this country.
24
Judge McElroy: You understand what a court procedure is.
25
Mr. Coughlin: I think it's something that the Constitution
26
27
attaches to, I think?

Judge McElroy: Okay, great. Okay, the next question?
28
278/433
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know. Does the constitution attach to this?
Q: Did you drink wine in the past four years?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: In the past four years, did you keep any alcohol in your
residence?
Q: Did you keep any drug paraphernalia in your residence in the
ms.
9
past four years?

10
11
A: I wouldn't know. I don't keep track of everything that is in my
12
13
14
residence.
Q: You lived at 1255 Jones Street Apartment 132 in Reno, Nevada
from October 2004 through April 2006, correct?
15
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know what do you mean by lived there?
16
Ms. Kagan: do you have a question about what lived means?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, what do you mean by it?
18
Q: Was that your residence?
19
A: I'm not sure.
20
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 3 page 2, are you going to turn to that
21
exhibit?
22
Mr. Coughlin: No, why don't you just go ahead and read it for me?
23
Q: Well this is your update to the State Bar dated February 15 th,
24
2007, and on page 2, it says October 2004 through April 2006, 1255 Jones
25
number 132 Reno, NV 89503, and that's under residents history. Was
26
that a true statement?
27
Mr. Coughlin: Well, you asked me if I lived there right?
28
279/433
Ms. Kagan: I asked if that was your residence.
Mr. Coughlin: I don't remember you asking that question.
Judge McElroy: Well the question now is-
M and K in perfect unison: What that your residence?
A: Was that my residence at that time? I think so.
Q: And you lived alone at that residence correct?
A: I don't know that you could say that, I had people stay over at
8
ms.
9
different times.
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, when I asked you that same question
your deposition you testified that you lived alone at that address.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Well that depends what you mean by lived.
11
Judge McElroy: Why don't you go on to the next question?
12
Mr. Coughlin: Can I use the restroom?
13
Judge McElroy: You have five-minutes.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Great, thanks so much.
15
Judge McElroy: Back on the record, resuming with the direct
16
17
examination of Mr. Coughlin.

Q: I just want to direct your attention Mr. Coughlin to Exhibit 57-
18
page 108 when you're asked about the unlawful detainer actions that
19
took place on Jones Street. Question: did you have a roommate at the
20
time? Answer: No.
21
Question: you were living alone? Answer: yes, I was.:
22
Mr. Coughlin: Do you have a question?
23
Q: That's what you stated at deposition, that's what you testified
24
at your deposition correct?
25
A: I'm not sure.
26
Q: Now, I'd like to talk about the eviction that took place at 1255
27
Jones street apartment 132-
28
280/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: But that certainly doesn't mean that I don't have
people over-
Q: Can you describe what occurred regarding that eviction?
A: No.
Q: Were you provided notice of that eviction, Mr. Coughlin?
A: I am not sure.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 63 please.
ms.
9
10

Q: Exhibit 63 has to do with the unlawful detainer that happened
at 1255 Jones street apartment 132 correct?
11
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure it's your exhibit.
12
Q: Page 2 to that exhibit in the Justice Court of Reno township in
13
and for the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, River Arms
14
Apartments-
15
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, can we call it Nevada, because I'm not
16
calling this Califainia, you know.
17
Judge McElroy: Its Nevada.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Its Nevada. Can you say that? Can you make those
19
20
21
sounds with your mouth?

Q: Case number REV-2006-00909, now you already testified that
you were-
22
Mr. Coughlin: Where was this? What state was this in?
23
Q: You already testified that this unlawful detainer did occur.
24
Mr. Coughlin: Where?
25
Judge McElroy: The court is going to issue a warning to you if you
26
do not act and comport yourself in accordance with a lawyer then I'm
27
28
281/433
going to ask that you be- I'm going to remove you from this courtroom,
okay, so let's answer a question to the best of your ability:
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure I know what you mean, your honor, but
okay? Its like the standard for obscenity, you kind of know it when you
see it, what's a lawyer and what's not a lawyer?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Like if someone had gold teeth and cornrows?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: and walked in with gold chains then they would
not be a lawyer right?
10
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin there is no question pending.
11
12
Q: Now, you already testified earlier that you were I mean there
13
was an unlawful detainer action against you in this case correct?
14
A: I don't remember Rings a bell?
15
Q: However at your deposition you testified that you didn't get
16
notice of this unlawful detainer action or eviction, but you had to leave
17
on the 19th when an officer came to your residence to evict you correct?
18
A: I am no sure out that.
19
Q: Exhibit 57-page 99 when a question line starting with 19 what
20
happened in the process of the eviction?
21
Mr. Coughlin: This is page 99 you are talking about?
22
Ms. Kagan: Page 99, Exhibit 57, line 19 what happened in
23
Mr. Coughlin: 57? Page 99?
24
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 57.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Bate-stamp 99? Because mine only go up to 51. Are
26
you talking about the court reporter's page numbers?
27
Ms. Kagan: Page 99 of the deposition transcript.
28
282/433
Mr. Coughlin: Okay because you're not going by bates stamps.
Judge McElroy: Could you read into the record the deposition
3
4
transcript?
Ms. Kagan: Yes, I'm sorry it is line 19 question what happened in
the process of the eviction answer I was evicted question were you
physically removed from the premises answer an officer came to my
premises and told me I was being evicted which I didn't that was the
first I heard of that I didn't know that something happened with the
ms.
9
notice such that I didn't get it or wasn't aware I hadn't opened the letter
I'm not sure and so on the nineteenth of that month when the officers
10
showed up and said you're evicted I did have to leave on that day
11
question and this is going on to page 100 starting line 5 was that the
12
same residence that was the subject of two unlawful detainer actions
13
against you answer I believe so yes question and those and are those the
14
unlawful detainer actions of the River Arms Apartments was the
15
residence called River Arms Apartments answer yes skipping down to
16
page 101 starting on Line six when did you first become question when
17
did you first become aware of the judgment answer I'm not sure I don't
18
know that by being aware that I'm evicted I know that there's a
19
judgment I didn't understand that and in your application that you
20
filed that was probably the first time I was aware that there was an
21
actual case number and that they had won a judgment against me. Now
22
I'd like to return back to page Exhibit 63 and on page four are you
23
looking at Exhibit 63, Mr. Coughlin?
24
A: Yes, Susan.
25
Q: Please turn to Page 4, an affidavit of service and it states Mark
26
Stroess being first duly sworn deposes and says that affiance is a citizen
27
of the United States over 18 years of age not a party to the within
28
283/433
entered action and that in the County of Washoe State of Nevada
personally served that described document upon person served, Zachary
Coughlin, by serving posted locations 1255 Jones Street Number 132
Reno, Nevada date
April 19th, 2006 time 12:41 pm Mr. Coughlin was that notice which is
reflected on page two of the same exhibit posted on your door at 132?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know.
Ms. Kagan: May I approach Your Honor?
ms.
9

Ms. Kagan: Here is Exhibit 73, the photos. And let the record
10
reflect that I am taking the originals of Exhibits 73 A through M. Mr.
11
Coughlin, I'm going to show you what's marked as Exhibit 73?
12
Mr. Coughlin: This is A through M?
13
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Because, its not up in here.
15
Ms. Kagan: Yes, I have it right in my hand.
16
Mr. Coughlin: But why isn't it in here? I see N and O, but I don't
17
18
19
20
21
see A, B, C, D all the way to the M?

Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, I'm handing you a picture that is of a
door numbered 132 with an eviction order on it.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, I haven't been provided with this. I don't
know how I prepare for trial against this.
22
Judge McElroy: Has he been provided with these documents?
23
Ms. Kagan: No, this is impeachment, Your Honor.
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: I object. How can you not provide this stuff and
26
27
then show up on the day of the trial, you know?

28
284/433
1
2
3
4
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect that I am showing Your Honor
Exhibit 73A. Mr. Coughlin, let the record reflect thatMr. Coughlin: Why didn't I get a copy of these exhibits that you
keep bringing up? Why didn't I get a copy of them?
Ms. Kagan: This is impeachment, Mr. Coughlin.
Mr. Coughlin: So that doesn't mean you don't provide them.
Judge McElroy: You are getting a copy now, you're looking at it.
Mr. Coughlin: Well then I request- whatever.
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
Q: Do you recognize Exhibit 73a?

A: No.
Q: Isn't that your door that you lived at at Jones Street? The one
you were evicted from?
A: I don't know it could be a door you've doctored up in Photoshop
or I don't know what it is-I'll keep this.
14
Ms. Kagan: Actually that's the original, I will give you a copy.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I'll give you a copy.
16
Judge McElroy: Please give her back the original.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I don't get to give her a copy?
18
Judge McElroy: You will get a copy.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Eventually? After the trials over, maybe I'll get a
20
copy to prepare for it? Is that, is that the case? Good, that sounds fair.
21
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect that I'm giving Mr. Coughlin a
22
copy of Exhibits 73a threw 73m.
23
Mr. Coughlin: For the first time on the third day of trial?
24
Ms. Kagan: I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 73B,
25
let the record reflect I am showing Your Honor. Mr. Coughlin, this is
26
Exhibit 73B and in this exhibit of the inside of Apartment 132, there's a
27
28
285/433
book, you can see a binder with the name of Hale Lane on it. Do you
recognize this exhibit?
Mr. Coughlin: Which one was that?
Ms. Kagan: 73B.
Mr. Coughlin: Which one one here? Can you do these by number?
Ms. Kagan: I'm showing you the original, Mr. Coughlin.
Mr. Coughlin: but Id like to have it A through B so I can refer to
8
ms.
9
them.
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, I'm showing you the original they are
marked on the back.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Ok 73b you say, what about them?
11
Q: Do you recognize this exhibit.
12
A: No. Well, I mean, I was just provided with it, I don't know how
13
I could recognize it.
14
Judge McElroy: Why don't you take some time to look at it.
15
Q: Now do you recognize it?
16
A: No.
17
Q: Is your apartment?
18
A: I'm not sure.
19
Q: But you do see that there's a Hale Lane booklet in the picture,
20
on the table?
21
A: I can't read that.
22
Q: But you did work at the law firm of Hale Lane, correct?
23
A: Yes, I did.
24
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, have these been authenticated yet?
25
Ms. Kagan: I haven't offered them into evidence yet.
26
Mr. Coughlin: How can they be presented if they have not been
27
offered into evidence?
28
286/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: You are to look at them. They haven't been,

they're not in evidence, yet.
Mr. Coughlin: they're not in evidence? But, they are in your
courtroom and we are talking about them?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, they are not authenticated.
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, I would like you-
ms.
9

10
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, foundation.
11
12
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect that I'm showing Your Honor
13
Exhibit 73C. Mr. Coughlin, I'm showing you what's been marked
14
Exhibit 73C which is a photo of alcoholic beverages, bottles as well as a
15
blue bong. Do you recognize Exhibit 73C.
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: I object to your characterizations of those and no I

don't recognize them.
18
Ms. Kagan: Take a minute to look at those.
19
Mr. Coughlin: I see empty bottles, see a drum set. I don't know
20
what I don't know what the blue thing is.
21
Q: Do you recognize this exhibit?
22
A: No. I haven't been provided with that exhibit either, so.
23
Ms. Kagan: Well you have it right in front of you now. Was this
24
25
26
kept in your apartment at 1255Mr. Coughlin: I don't even know that this is my apartment, this is
some picture-
27
28
287/433
Judge McElroy: The record should reflect he's denying it's his
1
2
apartment-
Mr. Coughlin: No, I, said I don't know that it's my apartment.
Judge McElroy: So if you want to put those into evidence they are
going to have to be authenticated. Obviously he's not going to
authenticate them.
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect I'm handing the originals back
7
8
to the Court Administrator.

Mr. Coughlin: So how can they be not be in evidence if she's
ms.
9
showing them to you?

Judge McElroy: They're not into evidence. They don't become part
10
11
of this trial.
Mr. Coughlin: So you just don't? Okay, so I can show something to
12
13
a jury and its not in evidence?

Judge McElroy: What I'm saying- In writing my decision this will
14
15
not be part of the evidence, it's not admitted into evidence and unless
16
she gets someone to authenticate it because you've obviously said you
17
don't know whether it's your apartment or not.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Can I use the restroom, Your Honor.
19
Judge McElroy: No, you can't. What is the next question.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I do need to use it, so, if there is some point in
21
the near future when I could?
22
Judge McElroy: Can you hold on for 15 minutes?
23
Mr. Coughlin: That would be pushing it.
24
Judge McElroy: Okay, let's push it. What's the next question?
25
Mr. Coughlin: Actually, I don't think I can your honor, it won't be
26
27
long.
Judge McElroy: Five seconds.
28
288/433
Mr. Coughlin: Five seconds? Okay.
Judge McElroy: back on the record.
Ms. Kagan: Turn to Exhibit 3, Mr. Coughlin, Page 4, under section
8.1 credentials and licenses, you state three lines down: licensed as a
patent agent since May of 2003, pares, though upon becoming an
attorney that may now be classified as a patent attorney, correct?
7
8
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance, importance, whatever,

whatever.
A: I don't know, is that what it says?
Ms. Kagan: I'd like you to turn to Exhibit 74, page 2 of that
11
exhibit is a printout from the United States Patent and Trademark
12
Office and it says last name Coughlin, first name Zachary-
13
Mr. Coughlin: This is Exhibit 74?
14
Ms. Kagan: 74, page 2.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, foundation, authentication.
16
Ms. Kagan: I haven't put it into evidence yet, your honor.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Well, then put it into evidence.
18
Judge McElroy: Okay, she hasn't put it into evidence. You need to
19
look at it, Exhibit 74.
20
Mr. Coughlin: I don't understand why things can't be put into
21
evidence or propounded before trial. It's like this rogue prosecutor
22
thing in the Duke Lacrosse case.
23
24
Ms. Kagan: On this exhibit it states-
25
Mr. Coughlin: Prosecutors should have some ethics-
26
Ms. Kagan: Registration number 53905 and then it states
27
attorneys slash agent and it lists agent, correct?
28
289/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know, what is this, something you printed

off their website?
Ms. Kagan: Date registered as agent 5/2003.
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know. What is this? Is this something
printed off their website? Is it accurate? Is it updated? You tell me. Do
you even know what a patent attorney or agent is? Is there a bar to
take that? Do you know? Do you know anything about that?
Judge McElroy: What was the question?
Mr. Coughlin: I am not answering about anything that's not
ms.
9
10
authenticated.
Q: As of October 2007, Mr. Coughlin are you registered as a patent
attorney or a patent agent?
11
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know. And I object to if you're just going on
12
a website and printing off something on a website and acting like that
13
is law, it's ridiculous. Your like the rogue prosecutor in the Duke
14
Lacrosse case, you're out of control, Ms. Kagan.
15
16
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I move to strike these comments that Mr.
Coughlin is making disparaging my character.
17
Judge McElroy: The comments will be stricken from the record.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Don't have the character you have if you don't want
19
to be compared to the Duke Lacrosse rogue prosecutor or rogue
20
prosecutors in other instances where getting a promotion is more
21
important than the truth.
22
Q: Mr. Coughlin, on July 13th, 2004 the Committee of Bar
23
Examiners advised you that it would not recommend your admission
24
but offered to hold your application in abeyance so the Committee may
25
evaluate your recovery from alcohol abuse, correct?
26
A: I'm not sure.
27
28
290/433
Q: Let's turn to page Exhibit 37 which is already in evidence, this
is a letter dated July 13th, 2004 to Jerome Fishkin from Deborah
Murphy Lawson director of moral character determinations first
paragraph states I'm writing to inform you the status of your client's
application for determination of moral character the Committee of Bar
Examiners Committee does not believe it is now in a position to
recommend your client's admission to the Supreme Court of California
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10 of the rules regulating admission
ms.
to practice law in California. However the Committee has decided that
9
10
11
your client'sMr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance. Are we going to take up the

whole day with with Ms. Kagan's-
12
Judge McElroy: it's overruled.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Cross-direction or whatever?
14
Q: The Committee has decided that your client's application will
15
be held in advance until January 13th, 2005 so the Committee may
16
evaluate his recovery from alcohol abuse.
17
Mr. Coughlin: From alcohol abuse? Oh, okay.
18
Ms. Kagan: Committee requires that your client participate-
19
Mr. Coughlin: Does is say and whatever the hell else you want to
20
look at?
21
Ms. Kagan: May I finish Mr. Coughlin.
22
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know, can you read?
23
Judge McElroy: Let her finish.
24
Ms. Kagan: The Committee requires that your client participate
25
in State Bar of California's lawyer assistance program (LAP) which has
26
been established to provide assistance with mental health and
27
substance abuse issues to members of the legal profession-
28
291/433
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry I couldn't hear if you said requires that
your client participate? Does it say it requires that he enroll in it for
five years and open up the checkbook to us?
Q: In fact, on July 19th, 2004, you executed a stipulation pursuant
to rule 10 section 4, also called the abeyance stipulation agreeing to
have your recovery from alcohol abuse monitored by LAP, correct?
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: Did it say alcohol abuse and whatever the hell else
it is you want to poke around in?
Ms. Kagan: Let's look at Exhibit 38, page 2Mr. Coughlin: Because I didn't see that part if you can point that
out to me.
Ms. Kagan: Its already in evidence, Mr. Coughlin, its a stipulation
13
pursuant to rule 10 section 4 at the bottom its signed Zach Coughlin
14
7/9/04, correct, this is something that you signed? Page 2 of Exhibit 38?
15
Mr. Coughlin: Let's see, there's a stipulation. The purpose of
16
reviewing this application for determination of moral character in
17
order to evaluate his recovery from alcohol abuse, period. I don't see
18
where it goes on and says plus we'll ask you questions about your
19
psycho sexual history and we'll just go on with whatever we want
20
because it's our blank check.
21
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin did you sign the document?
22
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, I don't see where it says I'm enrolling in LAP
23
24
25
26
in here.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, that wasn't the question posed, the question is do
you recognize, did you sign this document?
Mr. Coughlin: I think so.
27
28
292/433
Q: Then on June 30th, 2005 you completed the telephone intake
1
2
processMr. Coughlin: And that's a full year later! Isn't it? Because this
3
4
was signed in 2004, so why did it take a year for them to do their
telephone intake?
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin that wasn't the question.
Mr. Coughlin: And why do I have numerous correspondences in
the meantime sent to them including status reports? Why is it a year?

Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, that is not the question.
ms.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, when you present your side of the
9
10
11
12
caseMr. Coughlin: Am I going to have time, because Ms. Kagan has

hogged everything so far, so?
13
Judge McElroy: You will.
14
Q: Mr. Coughlin on June 30th, 2005, you enrolled in LAP you
15
completed the telephone intake process, correct?
16
A: No, I enrolled in LAP prior to that.
17
Ms. Kagan: Let's look at Exhibit 72 page 26 are you on Exhibit 72
18
page 26, Mr. Coughlin?
19
20
Ms. Kagan: You take your time and look at it.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Well, thank you, Susan.
22
Q: Page 26 is entitled lawyer assistance program, LAP,
23
notification of enrollment. It states, this is to serve as notification that
24
Zachary Coughlin contacted the lawyer assistance program on June
25
22nd, 2005 and has completed the telephone intake process, correct?
26
27
A: I don't know because I had been speaking with them and

sending them quarterly reports since early 2004, I believe, so I don't
28
293/433
know how this could be accurate. I don't know why they decided to take
a year to decide that I had finally completed some arbitrary telephone
intake interview.
Q: On August 31st, Mr. Coughlin, you were provided a letter that
you were accepted into the LAP program on August 18 th, 2005, correct?
A: I can't say that's correct.
Q: Let's turns to the same exhibit page 22 that is Exhibit 72, page
ms.
9
22 it is 22 to 23 of this exhibit is a letter dated August 31 st, 2005 to

Zachary B. Coughlin and it is signed Janis R. Thibault, it states
10
paragraph 1, welcome to the lawyer assistance program, LAP. The LAP
11
evaluation Committee formally accepted you into the program on
12
August 18th, 2005. The Committee designed an individualized
13
participation-
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: After an extended period of playing hide the ball,

right?
16
Ms. Kagan: The Committee designed and individualized
17
participation agreement that includes recommendations to enhance
18
your recovery-
19
Mr. Coughlin: Oh, good!
20
Ms. Kagan: Your case manager will provide a copy of your
21
agreement for review and signature. Please sign within five business
22
days and return the agreement to your case manager.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Let the healing begin, huh?
24
Ms. Kagan: And then I just want to get down to paragraph 3, the
25
evaluation Committee determines completion of the program the LAP
26
will acknowledge and verify both successful participation in the
27
program and successful completion of the program. Successful
28
294/433
participation is defined as achieving and maintaining sobriety,
stability, and full compliance with the terms of the participation
agreement.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevancy. Where are we going with
4
5
this?
Q: Did you receive this letter, Mr. Coughlin?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor.
ms.
9
10
A: I received a lot of letters from LAP.

Q: Then on September 6th, 2005 you sign the LAP participation
plan, correct?
11
A: I remember signing things earlier than that.
12
Q: The question was on September 6, 2005, you signed the LAP
13
participation plan, correct?
14
Mr. Coughlin: Do you have an exhibit I can look at?
15
Ms. Kagan: Yes, I do, Exhibit 72 pages 12 to 13.
16
Mr. Coughlin: ok yeah that looks like my signature.
17
Q: And this participation plan had two parts. Part A had nine
18
19
20
conditionsMr. Coughlin: But, I had already signed one of these plans like
months beforehand.
21
Judge McElroy: Let her finish the question, Mr. Coughlin.
22
Q: Part A has nine conditions and Part B has nine conditions,
23
24
correct?
Mr. Coughlin: Let me review this first. I see were it says you can't
25
take prescription meds unless it's approved by a physician in
26
consultation with the program.
27
Ms. Kagan: That is not the question, Mr. Coughlin.
28
295/433
Mr. Coughlin: Is that were they are practicing medicine?
Q: The question is Part A has nine conditions and Part B has nine
conditions, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I believe so.
Q: And at the top of page twelve it states, I, Zachary Coughlin in
participating the lawyer assistance program, hereinafter LAP or
Program. Then the third sentence is therefore, in cooperation after a
cooperative effort with the LAP, I agree to follow the conditions I will.
ms.
9
And then it sets forth the conditions, correct? The conditions we just
discussed?
10
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry can you repeat the question.
11
Q: You agreed to follow the conditions that are set forth in Part A
12
and Part B of this exhibit, Mr. Coughlin?
13
Mr. Coughlin: Which exhibit is this?
14
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 72 pages 12 to 13.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor if I need to come back next week I
16
would say that I won't agree to a telephone testimony by the doctor.
17
Judge McElroy: Please answer the question.
18
Mr. Coughlin: I am just pointing that out at this point.
19
Judge McElroy: Okay, the courts so notes.
20
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry what was your question, Susan?
21
Q: Did you agree to follow the conditions set forth in Part A and
22
23
24
Part B of this participation plan, correct?

Mr. Coughlin: objection. We are just asking the same question
again and again.
25
Ms. Kagan: You haven't answered the question.
26
Mr. Coughlin: Well, we talked about signing it right, Susan?
27
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin answer the question.
28
296/433
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry what was the question?
Q: You agreed to follow the conditions set forth in Part A and Part
B of this exhibit, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: Exhibit 72?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, it's signed, right? And, we established that it
7
8
ms.
9
10
was my signature earlier? Right?

Ms. Kagan: That's not the question, please answer the question.
Mr. Coughlin: I signed it? So what was your question?
Q: Fourth time. You agreed to follow the conditions set forth in
Part A and Part B of this exhibit, correct?
11
A: I signed it, yes?
12
Q: You were terminated from LAP on April 7th, 2006, correct?
13
Mr. Coughlin: April 7th, you say?
14
Ms. Kagan: Yeah.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know.
16
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin. Exhibit 6 is a letter dated
17
April 7th, 2006 to Zachary B. Coughlin from Janis R. Thibault and it
18
states in anticipation of the report to the Committee of Bar Examiners,
19
CBX, on February 16, 2006, the LAP evaluation Committee met to
20
review your participation at that time your participation did not
21
warrant a favorable recommendation. You were given a period of time
22
to explore arrangements that might allow you a more favorable
23
outcome. To date we have not received any information from you but
24
must report to CBX. The LAP evaluation Committee has determined
25
that you have not successfully complied with their recommendations
26
and appear not to have gained insight regarding your alcohol abuse. In
27
28
297/433
addition your participation in the LAP has been terminated, correct?
That's what the letter says?
Mr. Coughlin: No, the letter has a lot more in there.
Ms. Kagan: We hope that you will choose to pursue recovery and
we extend the invitation to contact the LAP assistance in the future if
you so choose. That's what the letter says, Mr. Coughlin?
A: In its entirety, no.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, on November 21st 2006 you were sent a letter
ms.
9
10
from the State Bar requesting that you provide a renewed

authorization for disclosure and release of information form to the
State Bar, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: Is that is that the one where you were making a lot
11
12
of threats about it and?

Q: Mr. Coughlin that wasn't the question. If you turn to Exhibit 9
13
14
a letter dated November 21st, 2006 to Zachary Coughlin from Susan I.
15
Kagan. As you know the State Bar is requesting you to provide a
16
renewed LAP authorization form and fingerprint records report in
17
connection with the above-referenced matter per your voice mail
18
message on October 31st, 2006.

Mr. Coughlin: Objection, hearsay, voice mail, has not been
19
20
authenticated or submitted into evidence.
21
22
Ms. Kagan: I understand you're refusing to provide these items
23
absent further explanation. To this end I've attempted to contact you
24
on several occasions to discuss the matter to no avail. If the requested
25
items are not received by this office by close of business on December 1 st,
26
2006-
27
28
298/433
Mr. Coughlin: Right, so I gave you another one right, Susan?
Ms. Kagan: But you didn't give me another one until April 20 th,
3
4
5
6
7
2007, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: Well, you didn't give me a lot of the damn exhibits
until the third day trial, so what's your point, Susan?
Ms. Kagan: Just answer the question, you didn't give me an
authorization until April 20th 2007, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure of the day.
ms.
Ms. Kagan: Two weeks prior to trial?
9
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure of the day.

Ms. Kagan: Even though on January 3rd, 2007 another letter was
sent to you requesting a renewed authorization.
12
Mr. Coughlin: I can't confirm that.
13
Ms. Kagan: That's Exhibit 10, Mr. Coughlin. Exhibit 10 dated
14
January 3rd, 2007 to Mr. Coughlin and encloses the a LAP authorization
15
form. Please sign and date the form returned to me by close of business
16
on January 16th, 2007. Please contact me if you have any questions.
17
Mr. Coughlin: What is your question?
18
Q: Did you receive this letter, Mr. Coughlin?
19
A: I'm not sure, did you send it by certified mail or get a
20
signature?
21
Judge McElroy: It's not your turn to ask questions.
22
Q: Mr. Coughlin, at your deposition on March 2nd, 2007, you refused
23
to provide an authorization form to the State Bar, correct?
24
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure I understand your question.
25
Q: You were asked to provide an authorization form at your
26
27
deposition on March 2nd, 2007, correct?

Mr. Coughlin: An authorization form for what?
28
299/433
Ms. Kagan: For LAP.
Mr. Coughlin: To do what?
Ms. Kagan: An authorization for disclosure. Disclosure or release
of information form.
Mr. Coughlin: I think you might have mentioned that.
Q: In fact at your deposition you refused to answer any questions
regarding your participation in LAP and refused to provide a renewed
authorization form.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Is that right? I believe that happened? Yeah, I

believe we talked about how the fact that your authorization form had
10
LAPsed and that was inconvenient for you to get another one. Which
11
deposition was this?
12
Ms. Kagan: The first one.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Where?
14
Ms. Kagan: Reno.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Reno, where?
16
17
Q: Let's see, Mr. Coughlin, you were deposed on March 2 nd, 2007,
18
correct?
19
Mr. Coughlin: By whom?
20
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I am warning you. You are not to
21
be asking questions. Right now you are being subjected to answer
22
questions.
23
Q: You were deposed on March 2nd, 2007 in relation to this matter?
24
A: I'm not sure.
25
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 57, your honor, it is a condensed transcript
26
27
of the deposition of Zachary Coughlin, March 2nd, 2007, Reno, Nevawta.

Judge McElroy: Does this refresh your memory.
28
300/433
1
2
3
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know where Nevawta, I don't know what

that is. What is Nevawta?
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I request to have the entire Exhibit 57
moved into evidence.
Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm not going to move the entire deposition
into evidence at this point I think what you need to do is read into
evidence the relevant parts.
8
ms.
9
Q: Mr. Coughlin, at your deposition on March 2nd, 2007 you refused

to answer questions regarding your October 2001 arrest, correct?
A: I am not sure. Object relevancy.
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: The fact that no other applicants have to answer.
12
The answer about convictions. So why are we spending all this time on
13
an arrest that didn't lead to any conviction. Is that equal protection of
14
the laws, is that what that is?
15
Judge McElroy: At this point, the issue is good moral character.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Right, but without equal protection, right?
17
Q: Page 10 of the deposition, Mr. Coughlin, starting with line 25:
18
question what I'd like to do is turn back to the last going on to page 11
19
line one page of Exhibit 1 and in second paragraph of that page about
20
five lines from the bottom this is actually discuss the arrest that took
21
place in October of 2001 outside of a movie theater in Nevada. The
22
sentence goes on to say I was charged with three misdemeanors:
23
resisting arrest, evading a police officer, and obstructing a police
24
officer. Can you go into a little detail about the actual arrest answer no
25
question no you can't go into detail or do you remember the arrest
26
answer well I'm going to object to that question what's your basis
27
answer well given the language and the other sections of this
28
301/433
application which deal with convictions as I read in this section I
believe it's 12.1 this is an incident for which I'd be under a duty to
disclose question well as part of discovery I'm entitled to take-
Mr. Coughlin: That should read this is an incident for which I
would not be under a duty to disclose.
Judge McElroy: Its what is says.
Q: questions well as part of discovery I'm entitled to take your
deposition and so I'm going to unless there's a privilege you have to
ms.
9
answer the question answer uh-huh question unless you refuse to

answer the question and then we can have the question certified and
10
take it to the court and see whether or not you're going to be ordered to
11
answer the question. This is starting on page 12.
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. Are we going to

have Ms. Kagan read to us all afternoon?
Judge McElroy: Since you don't recall your testimony she can use
15
the deposition transcript. If you recalled your testimony we wouldn't
16
have to read the deposition transcript. Since you can't recall anything
17
that you've ever done this is why it's taking so long. let's go ahead.
18
Q: Answer okay question is that what you want to do answer yes
19
questions so let's certify the question just to set the record straight is it
20
true that you are now refusing to answer any questions regarding your
21
arrest of October 2001?
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: Oh, okay, your question is did I refuse to answer

questions about the arrest? Yeah.
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Well, actually, I didn't refuse, I objected based on
26
the fact that your own application says that those arrests that don't
27
lead to conviction are not-
28
302/433
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin isn't it true that you refused-
Mr. Coughlin: I am not finished with my answer Ms. Kagan- are
not necessary to be reported.

Q: Mr. Coughlin at your deposition March 2nd, 2007 you refused to
4
5
discuss your law school academic dishonesty investigation isn't that
true?
A: Well that's a similar instance where I asserted that your own
7
8
ms.
application which is what I understand Equal Protection Clause to

mean is is that that has to be applied to everybody the same way andMs. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin there's-
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not finished with my answer Ms. Kagan-
11
Judge McElroy: Give your explanation. You admit that you
12
refusedMr. Coughlin: no I'm saying I asserted that it was an improper
13
14
question given that the academic dishonesty investigation did not lead
15
to any according to the language of your own California moral
16
character application didn't lead to any censure yada, yada, yadaQ: Mr. Coughlin, the question was you refused to testify about the
17
18
academic dishonesty investigation, correct?
19
A: I asserted a privilege.
20
Q: At your deposition on March 2nd, 2007 you refused to answer
21
any questions regarding your alcohol use or the LAP program, correct?
A: No, that's not correct, in my opinion, we talked a great deal
22
23
about alcohol during that.
24
Q: Page 29.
25
Mr. Coughlin: You asked me question after question about AA
26
27
andJudge McElroy: Okay, you answered the question, please.
28
303/433
Q: Page 29 starting with line 7 question do you believe that you
were an alcoholic at that time answer could you define what an
alcoholic is question do you not understand what an alcoholic is answer
I don't understand what you understand an alcoholic is question what
do you understand alcohol to be answer I'm not sure question isn't it
true that you actually attend Alcoholics Anonymous answer I'm going
to object to that question what's the basis for your objection answer
privacy grounds and the fact that the second word in that is
ms.
9
10
11
anonymous. Did you refuse to answer questions, Mr. Coughlin.

regarding that?
Mr. Coughlin: Are you asking me whether I was refusing to
answer questions when I was in this deposition or right now?
12
Ms. Kagan: Regarding that the deposition.
13
Mr. Coughlin: At the deposition? No, I don't believe, so, we talked
14
about alcohol for a long, long time. You asked me this and that the
15
other and talked about you know me going to AA meeting since I was
16
like three years old and all sorts of stuff like that so.
17
Q: Page 31, line 12 question how long you been attending AA
18
answer I object to that on privacy grounds but I will go ahead and
19
answer it, preserving the objection. I've been, I was taken to AA
20
meetings as a child, so. question why was that answer I don't know
21
question you're handing me back the exhibit you don't know why you're
22
taken to a meetings as a child answer no question why did you include
23
that information in your update for moral character application to me-
24
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, what page are you on?
25
Ms. Kagan: 31. answer I'm not sure question are you currently
26
attending AA meetings answer I object to that on privacy grounds but
27
question starting at page 32 did you attend all the meetings that are
28
304/433
documented in the pages that you sent me answer yes I believe so
question are you currently sober answer yes question how long have
you been sober answer I objected that on privacy grounds skipping
down to line 22Mr. Coughlin: Do you have a question or you just illustrating your
5
6
disgust for the Fourth Amendment and any privacy rights individuals
in this country might have that might conflict with your making
money as a prosecutor?
Q: Skipping down to line 20 of the same page-
ms.
Mr. Coughlin: No? No question? Just going to read to us?
Ms. Kagan: When is the last time you had an alcoholic beverage
10
11
answer I'm not sure and I'll objected on privacy grounds as well
12
question starting on page 33 if you don't want the State Bar to know
13
about your attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or anything about
14
your relationship with alcohol why did you include this information in
15
your application update answer I'm going to object to that question and
16
the way it is phrased. I believe its leading and you're saying if I don't
17
want the State Bar and that's not something I said that's something you
18
just said question excuse me strike that Ill rephrase my question-
19
Mr. Coughlin: Is there a question in this or you just reading to us?
20
Judge McElroy: She is reading the deposition transcript into the
21
record.
Mr. Coughlin: Is she going to read the whole thing into the record
22
23
24
25
26
27
orJudge McElroy: whenever you deny that you said it, she can
impeach you with the deposition transcript.
Mr. Coughlin: I am not denying that this is a record of the
deposition.
28
305/433
Judge McElroy: Or if you cannot recall.
Mr. Coughlin: What have I not recalled about this question?
Judge McElroy: Please proceed with reading what-
Mr. Coughlin: If you can tell me, do you have a question?
Ms. Kagan: question on a page 33 starting with line 10 is it true
that you're refusing to testify about your relationship with alcohol and
your relationship with Alcoholics Anonymous answer no questions so
when did you first start going to Alcoholics Anonymous answer I'm not
ms.
9
10
11
sure can you define going question when did you first start attending
meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous answerMr. Coughlin: Can I use the restroom, Your Honor? I really need
to use the restroom.
12
Judge McElroy: We will wait until 11:15. Go ahead.
13
Ms. Kagan: Answer, I can remember being in a meeting when I
14
was three years old so question what about in the last five years have
15
you been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for the last five
16
years answer I'm not sure can you just define attending for five years?
17
Does that mean once in five years or a hundred times in five years
18
continued on page 34 question at any any any at all did you ever go to
19
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the last five years answer, I'll object
20
to that on privacy grounds but go ahead and answer it yes I have ok
21
skipping down to line 20 is one of the reasons question is one of the
22
reasons also get you have a problem with alcohol answer object to that
23
question what's your objection answer objection would be privacy and it
24
would be objecting under ADA, it would be vagueness of the question, I
25
don't understand what you mean by a problem with alcohol.
26
27
Judge McElroy: Okay, I think that's enough in terms of this field

of questioning.
28
306/433
1
2
3
4
Q: At your deposition on March 2nd, 2007, Mr. Coughlin you

couldn't answerMr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I am having difficulty concentrating
as I need to use the restroom.
Judge McElroy: I'll give you five minutes.
Judge McElroy: Back on the record.
Q: At your deposition on March 2nd, 2007, Mr. Coughlin is it true
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
that you couldn't tell me whether or not you recognized or had the
email address of zanzibar2@hotmail.com?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not gonna answer that.
Q: You couldn't tell me whether or not you drafted emails to Unishippers which isMr. Coughlin: And I am not going to answer that, either. Am I
allowed to do that?
14
Judge McElroy: You can do whatever you want to do.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Because earlier I couldn't just not answer thing.
16
17
18
19
You made an order that I had to answer.

Judge McElroy: The record speaks for itself, let's go on to the next
question.
Mr. Coughlin: Because, earlier you said no you have to answer
20
those. You can't just say no I'm not gonna answer and have it reflect on
21
your candor. You said, your order was that you have to answer that.
22
Judge McElroy: This is moral character hearing and the issue is
23
your candor, I'm letting the record speaks for itself. What's the next
24
question.
25
Mr. Coughlin: But earlier you weren't, right?
26
Q: Mr. Coughlin, your deposition was taken again on April 26 2007
27
correct?
28
307/433
1
2
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: is that when I drove down from Nevada to Calif?

KayLAPhone-ya? Is that how you say it?
Q: Mr. Coughlin, please turn to Exhibit 70, a condensed depo
transcript.
Mr. Coughlin: Is this the one in KayLAPhone-ya?
Q: Deposition of Zachary Coughlin vol.2 Thursday April 26 th, 2007,
7
8
ms.
9
correct?
Mr. Coughlin: what's your question?
Q: You attended a deposition, testified at a deposition on April
26th, 2007?
10
A: In KayLAPhone-ya, Yes.
11
Q: At that time well you came to the deposition pursuant to a
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
court order compelling your attendance at a deposition, correct?

Mr. Coughlin: I remember that because I didn't have a right just
to say I'm not going to answer that. I had to answer, you knowQ: And you were ordered to answer questions regarding your
relationship with alcohol, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I was ordered to answer questions! I wasn't allowed
to say no I'm not gonna answer that I remember that.
Q: Yet, at the deposition you couldn't answer question the
following questions when you have your last drink correct?
Mr. Coughlin: If that's what it says in there then that's probably
what we said and what the court reporter transcribed.
Q: When your date of sobriety was you couldn't answer that
question correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure is that what I said? Or did I, did you go
through with the highlighter on this?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to exercise my right to to control the
28
308/433
courtroom and at this point. Mr. Coughlin has said that he cannot, he's
not sure of the date of his last sobriety, he's said it four or five times. I
don't think we need to go into this area anymore. So, I'm going to ask
that we move on to another area. He's not sure whether he had alcohol
in the last four years. He's not sure whether he had it in 2005-2006. He
doesn't know his sobriety date, the court knows it. So let's go on to
another line of questioning.

Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, if I may, this goes to Mr. Coughlin's
8
ms.
cooperation in this matter, not necessarily what his answers wereMr. Coughlin: I believe the judge has ruled.
9
10
Judge McElroy: The record has spoken in terms of his cooperation.
11
Ms. Kagan: Yes, your honor. Mr. Coughlin, are you employed
12
currently?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm going to object to that. That's not something I
13
14
feel is your business, Susan.
15
Judge McElroy: And it is overruled.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so does that mean I have to answer it?
17
Judge McElroy: Yes, you do have to answer it.
18
Mr. Coughlin: But, earlier I could say no I'm not going to answer
19
20
21
that?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, the objection, I've overruled, your
objection.
22
Mr. Coughlin: That's something I keep private.
23
Q: Have you had any employment between February 15 th, 2007 and
24
today?
25
Mr. Coughlin: That is something I keep private.
26
Q: do you have any employment in 2006?
27
28
309/433
A: That would be something I keep private?
Q: Yet you testified about it at your deposition on March 2 nd, 2007,
didn't you?
Mr. Coughlin: Did I?
4
5
Q: You testified that you worked at a place called West
corporation for about four to five weeks as a telephone support for
Cingular and that you were terminated because you missed two days of
work in the first 90 days employment, is that correct?

A: If that's what it says in the deposition then I wouldn't dispute
ms.
9
10
that.
Q: And also in 2006, you worked at Albertson's for approximately
11
two months as a cashier. You were terminated from that position
12
because you were told that the company didn't feel you were cut out for
13
that type of work-
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, are we going to go through when I

worked for a coffee cart when I was in seventh grade, too?
16
Judge McElroy: Objection is overruled.
17
Q: Did you testify about that at your deposition, Mr. Coughlin?
18
Mr. Coughlin: You tell me.
19
Q: Would you like me to read it onto the record, Mr. Coughlin?
20
Mr. Coughlin: Sure. Maybe if you could give us an idea where
21
you're going with this it would kinda, you know?
22
Judge McElroy: What pages?
23
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 57 page 73 actually it starts with page 73 line
24
1 answer I was a cashier question where answer Albertson's question
25
and where was that answer Reno, Novato-
26
Mr. Coughlin: Where's that?
27
28
310/433
Ms. Kagan: Where in Reno answer West 7 Street question how
long were you employed there answer I would say roughly two months
question how many answer roughly two months questions did you have
any other employment at that time answer I'm not sure it's possible I
did a research assignment for Tom Hall question why did you leave
your employment at Albertson's answer I don't know that I could
characterize it with sufficient particularity and accurately but I do
recall that the manager mentioned to me that he didn't feel I was cut
ms.
9
10
out for this type of work.

Mr. Coughlin: That's important how?
Q: In 2005, Mr. Coughlin you testified at your deposition that you
11
were employed at Men's Wearhouse for a week and your duties were
12
selling suits correct?
13
A: I have a vague recollection.
14
Q: During that same year you were employed at Macy's for
15
approximately four months were you sold suits.
16
17
Q: And you were let go because you might have been told it was
18
not a good fit.
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: Are we going to talk about me working at a yogurt
22
stand when I was in third grade, too? How far back we gonna go, is what
23
I want to know?
24
Judge McElroy: As far back as the prosecutor wants to go.
25
Mr. Coughlin: So we can go back to when I was making garments
26
for Martha Stewart in Ecuador when I was in second grade can go back
27
to that if that was a job I had?
28
311/433
Q: Mr. Coughlin, and during that same year you were employed at
the law firm of Hale Lane for approximately five months correct?
A: Yes, at Hale Lane.
Q: And you were let go from that position because as you testified,
you were told it was not a good fit correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm going to object to this because I signed a
severance agreement which I think might bind me from speaking on
ms.
9
10
this?
Q: Yet, you testified about it at your deposition.
Mr. Coughlin: I think I mentioned that very same confidential
11
severance agreement at my deposition, which I'll point out, Hale Lane
12
didn't seem to follow but I'm a man of the law, so I'll go ahead and try to
13
follow that agreement.
14
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 57, page 78.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I think you have that agreement so if you can read
16
it and tell me where it says I can comment on this then fine but.
17
Judge McElroy: So it's page 78?
18
Ms. Kagan: Line 5, question why did you leave that employment
19
answer I was told I'm not sure questions did you voluntarily leave that
20
employment answer I'm not sure question were you fired answer I'm
21
not sure question what was the reason that you were provided and so I
22
remember something about it not being a good fit-
23
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevancy. Were are we going with this?
24
What's the point that admitting this?
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: Can I just aimlessly bring up things too for hours
27
on end? If you had something worthwhile I don't think you would need
28
312/433
to, you know, dig in to a hundred different little things and try to make
something of it, you know?
Q: Mr. Coughlin, when you were questioned at your deposition
regarding the emails that you sent to Professor Tratos, the contents of
those emails you testified that the only thing that you would change
today was would be that the emails would be shorter, correct?
7
8
ms.
9
A: I don't remember exactly what I said but that rings somewhat

of a bell. I wouldn't say it's completely inclusive characterization of
what my testimony though.
Q: Exhibit 57, page 60 line 21 question what is your opinion of the
10
content of your emails to Professor Tratos answer can you be more
11
specific questions do you believe I would like you to describe what you
12
would characterize your email to Professor Tratos to be answer I don't
13
know a learning experience question I'm specifically asking about the
14
contents of your emails would you characterize them as a professional
15
answer I'm not sure I don't know quite what you mean by professional
16
question-
17
18
19
Q: When you're reading through these emails now what is your
20
opinion of your emails to Professor Tratos answer something I learned
21
from question and describe that what do you mean you learn from
22
answer just I think I learned that if you're accused of doing something
23
that you need to have respect for the process regardless of whether you
24
think that you should be accused and that I need to choose my words a
25
lot more carefully I was 24 when this was going on question would you
26
handle this differently today answer yes I believe I would question how
27
so answer they would be a lot shorter question the emails answer yeah.
28
313/433
1
2
3
Mr. Coughlin: And your question earlier was was whether that
was all I had to say about that?
Ms. Kagan: My question was I believe when asked about what you
would change about the content of the emails you say that they would
be a lot shorter.
Mr. Coughlin: And you said that's all I said, right?
Judge McElroy: What's next question?
Mr. Coughlin: It's kind of leaving out a few things. And that's
ms.
9
why I say a rogue prosecutor like the Duke Lacrosse case because
there's just a reckless disregard for my rights-
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: Nifong was the guy's name. They are disbarring
12
13
14
him now.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I would ask that you not speak
until you're spoken to.
15
16
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I don't think I have any questions at this
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
point.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you may step down. So in terms of
witnesses do you have any more witnesses?
Ms. Kagan: I have two witnesses from the State Bar just to
authenticate documents.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I would like to call Susan Kagan to
the stand.
24
Judge McElroy: You are not going to be allowed to do that.
25
Mr. Coughlin: It goes to several pertinent matters in the case,
26
your honor.
27
28
314/433
Judge McElroy: you're not allowed to call her and you will not be
1
2
able to call her, ok.
Mr. Coughlin: Even if it speaks on when I reported things and-
Judge McElroy: Yes, okay, so who are the two witnesses?
Ms. Kagan: Lynn Thingvold, she's a paralegal with our office and
Bill Stevens he's an investigator at the office.
Judge McElroy: And what would they testify to?
Mr. Coughlin: I'd like to call myself and speak in the narrative
ms.
9
too.
Ms. Kagan: Thingvold would be testifying about the photos that
10
are in Exhibit 73 in the entire Exhibit 73 inclusive of the photos and
11
her correspondence with Nevada DMV and Mr. Stevens would be
12
testifying about the Exhibit 74 which is the patent bar information
13
and also the DMV records and his participation in that.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Whoa, scintillating stuff, really.

Judge McElroy: Can you call them now?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ms. Kagan: I can look and see if they're in the office I told them
around two if they could be available then.
Judge McElroy: Okay and then we have the psychiatrist that's
coming on Thursday?
Q: I'm hoping that he is coming he said he was available that
week.
Judge McElroy: because you understand that he's not agreeing
that he can testify over the phone he wants him here in person.
Ms. Kagan: from what I understand from Dr. Tucker's message to
25
me he was available all week so I'm assuming that that means that he's
26
available to come in person.
27
28
315/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: Okay well he will have to come in person in order

to have his testimony.
Ms. Kagan: I'm just hoping that that date he is available to come
in person, I don't know that.
Mr. Coughlin: Tax dollars to pay him.
Judge McElroy: Can you find out when?
Ms. Kagan: I'm hoping to find out today whether or not he can
8
ms.
9
10
even testify today at four.

Judge McElroy: Ok we can go off the record.
Mr. Coughlin: He will need to be here, right? Not on the phone?
We're not talking about on the phone?
11
Judge McElroy: He's no longer-
12
(Record abruptly cuts off)
13
Judge McElroy: And I can read what the court is-
14
15
Judge McElroy: ok back on the record in the matter Zachary
16
Coughlin. We are going over the records that have been admitted into
17
evidence the court has admitted only one through six then it has been
18
admitted page 12 of 7, page 8.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Page 12 of 7?
20
Judge McElroy: That's the only part of Exhibit 7 that's been
21
admitted. Exhibit 8 through 12 admitted. Exhibit 15 pages 29 and 63
22
have been admitted. Exhibit seventeen admitted, Exhibit 19 admitted,
23
Exhibit 20 admitted, Exhibit 21 admitted, Exhibit 24-25 admitted,
24
Exhibit 29 admitted, Exhibit 31, 32 admitted, Exhibit 37, and 38, 1
25
through 30 admitted.
26
Court Personnel: I have that as Exhibit 39, your honor.
27
28
316/433
Judge McElroy: Okay maybe that's it that ok Exhibit 38 is
admitted and in terms of Exhibit 39 pages 1 through 30 are admitted.
Exhibit 40 and 41 admitted, Exhibit 44 admitted, Exhibit 47 admitted,
Exhibit 49 admitted, Exhibit 53 admitted, Exhibit 50 is admitted.

Ms. Kagan: I don't have that as admitted. That's alright, that's
5
6
also contained in Exhibit 72 though.

Judge McElroy: Okay, so that is not admitted. I believe it's part of
7
8
ms.
Exhibit 72 that was admitted, Exhibit 53 admitted. Exhibit 55

admitted, 57 only the pages that have been referred to in testimony are
admitted, 58 would be pages 5 and- that was admitted the whole thing
10
was admitted, Exhibit 57 only the pages that have been referred to in
11
testimony, pages 10 line 25, page 11 see page 11, lines 1 through 25, page
12
12.
13
Mr. Coughlin: And this is on the deposition?
14
Judge McElroy: Yes.
15
Mr. Coughlin: And we're referring to it by the depositions pages
16
not the bate stamps?

Judge McElroy: Yes. Page 12 lines 1 through 9, then we have page
17
18
29 line 7 through 24, page 31, line 10 through 25, page 32 and page 34,
19
page 78 lines 5 through 13, page 73 lines 14 through 23, page 60 line's 21
20
to 25 and page 61 the entire page, those are the ones it's going to be so
21
good ok those are admitted. 58 in its entirety is admitted 59 is admitted
22
60
23
is judicially noticed, Exhibit 61 is admitted, Exhibit 69 admitted,
24
Exhibit 62 and 63 are judicially noticed 65, 66, 67, and 68 are judicially
25
noticed, 69 is admitted, 70 that's the deposition, right?
26
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
27
28
317/433
1
2
3
4
5
Judge McElroy: what pages? I don't have the pages that were
admitted.
Ms. Kagan: I don't believe I read any pages from that that
deposition on to the record.
Judge McElroy: ok so then it's not admitted. Exhibit 71 what is
that? That's not been admitted yet and then 72 was admitted in its
entirety and and that's all I have.
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, there was something regarding the

deposition transcripts from the March 2007 deposition regarding and oh
maybe I just read into the record regarding the fact that Mr. Coughlin
was living alone in the unlawful detainer.
Judge McElroy: yeah but I don't know what pages, do you have the
pages?
13
Ms. Kagan: Page 108. I think lines 16 to 22.
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, page 108, lines 16 through 22 are admitted.
15
Ms. Kagan: as well as on page 101 that was regarding his
16
knowledge of the lawsuit the unlawful detainer, I believe it started
17
line 6 and went through line 13.
18
19
Judge McElroy: ok page 101 line 6 to 13. so that's fine that's all we
have right?
20
Ms. Kagan: that's what I believe to be correct.
21
Judge McElroy: okay so why don't we go off the record.
22
23
Judge McElroy: ok so this is the matter of Zachary Coughlin and
24
we're back on the record before we took a recess the State Bar indicated
25
that they were going to have two witnesses testify in terms of
26
authenticating some documents and one is regarding the photographs
27
before we put in testimony about the photographs do you have the
28
318/433
person who actually took the photographs because if you don't then I
think there's a problem of authentication and there's no point in
putting someone on who says I got the photographs from the landlord.
Ms. Kagan: Okay we've tried to subpoena the person who took the
4
5
photographs however they are in Nevada and while they did promise to
come they never returned the subpoena and then stopped returning our
calls.
Judge McElroy: Ok so I don't think then you have the evidence in
8
ms.
terms of authenticating the photographs.

Mr. Coughlin: In regard to that your honor can any testimony
9
10
related to those photographs be stricken?
11
Judge McElroy: And they will be stricken.
12
Mr. Coughlin: okay thank you.
13
Judge McElroy: Any evidence relating to the photographs. In
14
terms of the Exhibit 74 the patent agent exhibit here's the problem
15
with that Mr. Coughlin has always been listed as an agent and now he
16
became an attorney in Nevada and the issue really is whether he had to
17
do some process to notify the patent / people that he's an attorney if he
18
has to do that then it appears to be still an agent so I don't see the
19
significance of agent of that whole agent testimony.

Ms. Kagan: Well he did put into his Exhibit 3 which is the update
20
21
that since he has been barred in Nevada that makes him an attorney
22
with the patent bar, Exhibit 3 page 4.
23
Judge McElroy: He says on page 4 that he is listed as an agent,
24
though upon becoming an attorney that I may now be classified as a
25
patent attorney.
Ms. Kagan: Right, says he is licensed as a patent agent since May
26
27
2003.
28
319/433
Judge McElroy: right and he still is a patent agent.
Ms. Kagan: correct but from that statement it appears that he
claims to be a patent attorney.

Mr. Coughlin: your honor I don't know that I am not a patent
4
5
attorney.
Judge McElroy: Please.
Ms. Kagan: It appears that he is claiming to be a patent attorney.
8
ms.
Though upon becoming an attorney, that may now be classified as a

patent attorney.
Judge McElroy: Right, I just don't see the significance of this at
9
10
all.
11
Ms. Kagan: The, the fact that he-
12
Mr. Coughlin: And this what you led with!
13
Ms. Kagan: The fact that he has only listed as an agent and he has
14
been listed as an agent since being licensed in 2003 but now claims to be
15
an attorney?
Judge McElroy: unless you can have someone come in and say that
16
17
in order to become that once he becomes that once he becomes an agent
18
and once he becomes an attorney he's automatically now a patent
19
attorney then I don't see the significance of it.

Ms. Kagan: Well, your honor, I would say that that's his burden to
20
21
prove that he's now a patent attorney because he claims to be a patent
22
attorney.
Judge McElroy: He says may now be. He doesn't, I mean, its so
23
24
nebulous, I just don't see the significance of it at all in terms of this
25
case.
26
Mr. Coughlin: and we had a deposition!
27
Judge McElroy: please.
28
320/433
Ms. Kagan: Well, your honor, there are two different distinctions
with the US Patent Office, there's either you're registered as an agent
or your registered as an attorney.
Judge McElroy: And its clear the news registered as an agent.
Ms. Kagan: Right, and, and, but from this document itself it shows
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
that he is holding, well claims to be anJudge McElroy: No, he is saying he may now be classified.
although he may now be classified as a patent attorney. It's
meaningless that statement to me. It just is. So, anyway.
Ms. Kagan: Well, uh.
Judge McElroy: He's listed as an agent, he's agreed that he's listed
11
as an agent I don't know why you need any more evidence to come in
12
and say is listed as an agent. He is listed as an agent.
13
14
15
Ms. Kagan: Well I don't think he testified that he's listed as an

agent.
Judge McElroy: I am not sure, Your Honor, what they have me
16
listed of his at this point. I don't know whether you become one
17
automatically or if there's some process you need to report that to. But,
18
simply printing off, I believe her exhibit is simply printing off
19
something off the internet she found when she did something like a
20
Google search for something I just don't think that that really rises to
21
the level of.
22
Judge McElroy: Well, it depends, she can have someone come in
23
and testify and then I have to look at it under evidence code section
24
5052 but the point is, I'm saying, I don't know what the point of it is I
25
just don't see the point. He was listed as an agent he says he's listed as
26
an agent he sends you an updated saying now that I've become an
27
28
321/433
attorney in Nevada I maybe a patent attorney? Who knows? Who
cares? I mean, I just don't see how its.
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: Everything has been treated this way! Everything's

been twisted like this!
Ms. Kagan: I think its relevant, your honor to the fact that he
hasn't admitted that he's listed as an agent as of right now.
Judge McElroy: I though he was listed as an agent?
Ms. Kagan: He said he was licensed as a patent agent.
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: Yeah, he is licensed as a patent agent.

Ms. Kagan: In May of 2003.
Judge McElroy: He says that I'm listed as an active agent on the
11
USPTO website and gives you his number! He's an agent. I just don't.
12
Mr. Coughlin: We have the certificate as well your honor.
13
Judge McElroy: I just don't see why this is being belabored. he's a
14
licensed or an agent says his number 53905.
15
Ms. Kagan: I-
16
Judge McElroy: Haha! Okay?
17
Ms. Kagan: And he just said right now he doesn't even know what
18
19
he is listed as.
Judge McElroy: Document number three is admitted into
20
evidence, he has said that he's an agent. The court understands him to
21
be an agent. if you want to put in additional evidence that he's listed on
22
a website that he's already admitted that he's an agent that's fine. I
23
will leave it to you.
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Just be a overly technical, I'm not sure I'm an

agent.
26
Judge McElroy: Whatever.
27
Mr. Coughlin: I might be an attorney.
28
322/433
Judge McElroy: Okay, let's put on your evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: Because she might come back with some line about
3
4
5
that later, you know so. he's just an agent he said, whatever.
(The oath was administered to Bill Stephens.)
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Mr. Stevens are you currently employed?
S: Yes at the State Bar of California.
Mr. Coughlin: Excuse me your honor can just make an objection.
ms.
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: Yes make an objection, a legal objection, no

speaking objection, legal.
Mr. Coughlin: I object to the submission of photographs when Ms.
Kagan knew she couldn't authenticate them as highly prejudicial.
12
Judge McElroy: We already struck them.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I move for sanctions against her for
14
presenting them.
15
M. Denied. Next question.
16
Q: Mr. Stevens you're currently employed at the State Bar and
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
what is your title?

A: I'm an investigator in enforcement in the office of the chief
trial counsel?
Q: And how long have you been investigator in the office of the
chief trial counsel
A: 23 years.
Q: Did you happen to work on the matter of this moral character

case of Zachary Coughlin?
24
A: Yes.
25
Q: and as part of your work on this matter did you contact the
26
27
Department of Motor Vehicles for Nevada?

A: Yes.
28
323/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance. I don't see how this is any

more relevant than the patent agent stuff.
Q: Do you recall why you contacted the DMV of Nevada.
A: To obtain the applicants driving record.
Q: How did you make contact with the DMV.
A: I wrote a letter.
Q: Your Honor may I approach?
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: Yes.

Q: Please let the record reflect I'm handing a copy of what's been
marked as Exhibit 76 to applicant.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Is this the first time getting this exhibit?
12
Judge McElroy: Apparently.
13
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just being given this now on the third day trial?
14
I object to entering this exhibit.
15
16
Mr. Coughlin: has it been authenticated?
17
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I've made my ruling. Please let her
18
19
20
21
just go ahead and ask the question.

Ms. Kagan: I am handing a copy to the Court, the original to the
Court Administrator, and a copy to the witness.
Q: Exhibit 76 is a four-page exhibit and the first page is a
22
facsimile transmission dated September 14 2006 to Laura Nevada DMV
23
from Bill Stevens followed by on page 2 a letter dated September 14,
24
2006 to Nevada DMV from William D Stevens. Mr. Stevens do you
25
recognize this exhibit.
26
27
A: Yes, I wrote this letter I signed it, attached my business card is

copied on the front page of the facts and the authorization and release
28
324/433
that's attached to that I would have attached to it to show the
applicants consent to have these records released if necessary.
Q: What do you do with this letter once you wrote it?
A: I had my paralegal fax it or our paralegal fax it to the Nevada
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
Department of Motor Vehicles.

Q: And is this the letter that you just testified that you sent to the
Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles?
A: yes it is.
Q: did you ever receive a response to this letter?
A: yes I did.
10
Q: Your Honor may I approach.
11
Judge McElroy: yes.
12
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect I'm handing the applicant
13
Exhibit 77.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I object your honor I haven't seen this exhibit.
15
Judge McElroy: I have to look at it myself.
16
Ms. Kagan: I am handing a copy to the Court, the original to the
17
Court Administrator, and a copy to the witness. Exhibit 77 is a three-
18
page exhibit. on the first page is entitled DMV, Nevada Department of
19
Motor Vehicles central services and Records Division. it's dated
20
September 18, 2006 attention William Stevens from Laura. do you
21
recognize this exhibit Mr. Stevens?
22
A: yes I do.
23
Q: and how do you recognize it because I'm the one who received
24
the fax in our office.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance. but let me just say your honor
26
I say that because I think if if there's something Ms. Kagan is trying to
27
28
325/433
prove with this perhaps I could just admit and we could not spend an
hour having you know each and every little.
Judge McElroy: The time for admitting was two weeks ago.
Mr. Coughlin: what if we're talking about getting a speeding
ticket six years ago and that's the whole reason for bringing Mr.
Stevens here and sitting here for taking up an hour.
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
Judge McElroy: So at this point you will stipulate that you had
speeding ticket?
Mr. Coughlin: I want to see what she's trying to prove.
Judge McElroy: ok so let her prove it okay go ahead.
Mr. Coughlin: If you're asking me will I stipulate to having a
speeding ticket, as long as I had one.
Ms. Kagan: If he doesn't object to Exhibit 64 then we don't need
Mr. Stevens testimony regarding this matter.
14
Judge McElroy: why don't you look at Exhibit 64.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I might just say I can't stipulate to exhibits that I
16
haven't been given.
17
Judge McElroy: 64 you were given.
18
Mr. Coughlin: But, I wasn't getting a lot of exhibits right?
19
Judge McElroy: okay 64, look at it. If you want more details to
20
come out, then don't stipulate.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Even if all this-
22
Judge McElroy: Will you stipulate or not?
23
Mr. Coughlin: No. But even if all this can be proven true, does
24
that does that justify the time?
Judge McElroy: yes.
25
Mr. Coughlin: The time taken to prove if I have a speeding ticket?
26
Judge McElroy: yes.
27
28
326/433
Mr. Coughlin: That is going to be we turn this guy's down after
five years and going through law school because he had a speeding
ticket?
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: its the issue of candor and cooperation. It appears

you have a problem with candor and with cooperation.
Mr. Coughlin: Its hard to expect someone to have candor after
some of the nefarious tactics that the State Bar has shown. In the LAP
program, the combative Sipowicz like NYPD Blue type behavior that
ms.
9
10
the State Bar has exhibited.

Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin are you ready to stipulate to
Exhibit 64 coming into evidence.
11
Mr. Coughlin: No.
12
Judge McElroy: ok let's proceed.
13
Ms. Kagan: I request that Exhibit 76 be moved into evidence.
14
Judge McElroy: it is.
15
Mr. Coughlin: I object your honor.
16
Judge McElroy: Its admitted into evidence.
17
Ms. Kagan: Your honor I requests that Exhibit 77 be moved into
18
evidence.
19
Judge McElroy: Its admitted.
20
Mr. Coughlin: I object.
21
Q: Did you perform an internet search regarding his registration
22
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and what was the results of
23
that investigation.
24
A: His name showed up as being registered with them it provided
25
a one-page or one screen notation as to him I printed it out and attached
26
it to a memo.
27
28
327/433
Q: Can you please turn in the witness binder to Exhibit 74, a two-
page exhibit first page is dated May 7, 2007 the memorandum Susan
Kagan from bill Stevens and the second page is a United States Patent
and Trademark Office print out. do you recognize Exhibit 74, Mr.
Stevens.
A: yes in its entirety.
Q: And how do you recognize it?
A: my initials appear on the front page of the memo and I recall
ms.
9
10
having printed page two.

Ms. Kagan: I request Exhibit 74 be moved into evidence any
objection.
11
Mr. Coughlin: I object as its an internet print out hearsay.
12
Judge McElroy: Overruled. You can cross-examine if you have an
13
issue in terms of whether it's unreliable or not, but at this point,
14
overruled.
15
Ms. Kagan: No further questions.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon Mr. Stevens how are you? Mr.
17
Stevens, what would you say the point of your testimony was today?
18
19
20
Q: Mr. Stevens what did you understand you were coming here to
21
testify about today.
22
23
Judge McElroy: Ill let him an answer that question in terms of
24
25
26
27
the understanding of why we are here.

A: The authentication of documents connected with me in the
investigation of applicant's moral character.
Q: And those would be the DMV documents?
28
328/433
A: They were included in that yes.
Q: Were there other documents included of note?
A: Exhibit 74 I believe it was noted as yes.
Q: And that included 74 include DMV documents and anything
else of note, maybe a State Bar release too?
A: I am not sure that correctly states what we've just gone over.
Q: okay, well, would you mind telling me what that is?
A: you asked me to identify what I was going to testify about it
ms.
was authenticating certain documents the DMV ones which are 77 and
76 and then 74 the US patent trademark office memo and print out do
10
we?
11
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin it is your case.
12
Mr. Coughlin: I am just trying to understand, we had a discussion
13
14
15
16
earlier aboutJudge McElroy: Its your case, you need to do what you need to do.
I'm not here to be your lawyer.
Mr. Coughlin: okay did we established that the patent matter
17
moot? The patent agent attorney distinction is that moot? or it seemed
18
like you made a ruling on that earlier.
19
Judge McElroy: I didn't make a ruling on that.
20
Mr. Coughlin: you made some comment?
21
Judge McElroy: I made some comment on it and the State Bar
22
23
24
decided to put that in the trial.

Mr. Coughlin: to persist in presenting that evidence despite your
comment.
25
Judge McElroy: yes. What's the next question.
26
Q: Mr. Stevens, do you know whether I am a patent agent or
27
attorney?
28
329/433
A: No.
Q: you are an investigator?
A: Yes.
Q: were you not able to deduce that?
Judge McElroy: go ahead and let it in if you can.
S: I don't recall what the question was.
Q: Were you able to deduce with your investigation skills
ms.
9
whether or not I'm a patent attorney?

A: yes.
10
Q: And what was the conclusion.
11
A: The conclusion I reached was on looking at the data available
12
13
14
that you are an agent.

Q: and that data consisted of a printout you found after doing a
Google search or something similar?
15
A: Yes.
16
Q: ok did you call the patent office and ask them?
17
A: No.
18
Q: did you make any direct contact with something you could
19
interact with besides I a Google search?
20
A: interact?
21
Q: like ask a question, receive an answer.
22
A: No.
23
Q: why didn't you do that? isn't it part of-
24
Judge McElroy: Let him answer.
25
A: I don't know if I can answer why I didn't do something.
26
Judge McElroy: there's his answer what's next question?
27
28
330/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: instead of saying why you didn't do something, tell

me why you did choose not to call.
Ms. Kagan: objections asked and answered.
Mr. Coughlin: okay so someone can say I didn't understand why I
didn't do something.
Judge McElroy: Ask the next question.
Mr. Coughlin: because I'm going to remember that one. I didn't
ms.
9
10
11
understand why I didn't do that.

Judge McElroy: ask the next question.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay and what did your DMV investigation yield?
What type of information did we find?
12
A: What was produced in Exhibit 77.
13
Q: Can you tell me the gist of that.
14
A: No.
15
Q: You can't tell me the gist of it?
16
A: No.
17
Q: Can you tell me did you get paid for working on this?
18
19
20
Mr. Coughlin: Am I not able to ask him any questions about his
21
compensation?
22
Judge McElroy: No.
23
Mr. Coughlin: so if he was paid $500,000 for this I wouldn't be able
24
25
26
to ask him?
Judge McElroy: that's correct. I've made my ruling. what's the
next question.
27
28
331/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: can you tell me does that DMV printout say I got a
speeding ticket or?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, beyond the scope of direct.
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him ask the question.
S: Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Coughlin: Sure, Mr. Stevens I will repeated it. does that DMV
7
8
ms.
9
10
printout say I got a speeding ticket?

A: I don't know.
Q: would you mind considering that? it was your investigation so
I'm just trying to you know get it straight from the guy who got paid
for doing it, you know?
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Can you tell me did I get a speeding ticket?
14
15
Judge McElroy: sustained, it has been asked and answered.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Can you tell me what the answer was?
17
Judge McElroy: He said he didn't know?
18
Mr. Coughlin: you don't know if I got a speeding ticket? can you
19
give me your recollections about what you do know about me and this
20
case and your involvement in it.
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope of direct.
22
Judge McElroy: Its very broad and vague and I am going to
23
24
25
26
sustain it on that. Next question.

Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, if you can provide me with any
direction as to what's important here?
Judge McElroy: I am not your lawyer.
27
28
332/433
Mr. Coughlin: okay, but earlier you said what were what we're
really looking at is whether or not you reported this thing accurately
right?
4
5
Judge McElroy: I have done more than help you with this case
and it's as far as I'm ready to go at this point. You are a lawyer.
Mr. Coughlin: In Nevada.
Judge McElroy: In Nevada. a lawyer nonetheless, so you need to
8
ms.
9
10
11
proceed like a lawyer.

Mr. Coughlin: so I'm a lawyer in one state but not in this one?
Judge McElroy: apparently.
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Stevens did you tell anyone during the course
of your investigation any information about me?
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Stevens did you tell anyone that you thought or
15
someone else thought I was an alcoholic during the course of your
16
investigation?
17
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and beyond the scope of direct.
18
Judge McElroy: I am going to let him ask the question. I know it's
19
beyond the scope of direct but he can put him on his own witness and
20
this is to save time what's the question did you tell anyone in the course
21
of your investigation or otherwise anything related to me that
22
indicates that you think or someone else thinks that I'm an alcoholic?
23
S: I would like to answer fully keeping in mind that you provided
24
us with an authorization and certain details about your personal life I
25
believe armed with that authorization, I did question the people to
26
which you referred us about the subject matters of your application-
27
28
333/433
Mr. Coughlin: and those people would be in please continue I don't
1
2
mean to interrupt here.

S: that's my that's my answer that's really what did you say to
3
4
them whatever conversations I had with them I recorded in memos that
can speak for themselves. I don't recall the exactMr. Coughlin: I don't have the memos Mr. Stevens so perhaps you
6
7
could speak for them.

S: generally?
Mr. Coughlin: sure. Well, how about tailored to what I asked you
ms.
9
originally?
10
S: I spoke with your father and we discussed his participation in
11
Nevada's version for physicians of what we call The Other Bar and he
12
volunteered some information about you. I spoke with Mr. TorsonMr. Coughlin: we're talking about what you volunteered about me
13
14
15
16
17
18
sir.
S: I'm sorry, I can't remember. I ask a lot of questions in the course
of an interview.
Q: So you never asked do you consider Mr. Coughlin to be an
alcoholic?
19
A: I can't say that I didn't it's a question I would ask probably.
20
Mr. Coughlin: okay we're there any were there any steps you took
21
to maintain my confidentiality?
22
A: yes.
23
Mr. Coughlin: what was that?
24
A: within the confines of the general confidentiality of a moral
25
character investigation I proceeded with the authorization you gave us
26
to LAP and to the State Bar in general and asked only those questions
27
28
334/433
of such people that could answer them with the knowledge of the
release.
Mr. Coughlin: And what people did you contact?
A: all of them?
Mr. Coughlin: yes, unless there was just a whole big giant list of
people but-
Judge McElroy: please let him answer the question.
S: I contacted your father Dr. Timothy Coughlin, I believe is his
ms.
name, your character witness Tony Torson, witnesses referenced in the
applications such as Mr. Tratos, Ms. Smith Mr. Staheli, the Nevada Bar
10
Association the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles the California
11
Department of Motor Vehicles the Office of General Counsel with the
12
State Bar, Bar Examiners of the State Bar. I don't know if thats an
13
exhaustive list but those are some of the people I contacted.
14
15
16
Mr. Coughlin: ok thank you. can you tell me what in the course of
your investigation would you say was the most damaging materials?
Ms. Kagan: objection, relevance and also your honor, this goes
17
beyond the scope of direct, if Mr. Coughlin wants to call Mr. Stevens he
18
needs to subpoena Mr. Stevens.
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: I was told that all witnesses and exhibits that were
listed by the State Bar would be available to me.
Judge McElroy: They are not available to you, but since he's here
22
you can call him as your witness why don't you call him as your
23
witness?
24
Mr. Coughlin: ok, should I do that after the cross-examination or?
25
Judge McElroy: sure. But, I can advise you that this witness is not
26
helpful to you and the more you go into it, the more detail that wasn't
27
28
335/433
ever even presented is now being presented. you have opened this case
wide open.
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: But not so far that I can't go beyond what was in
direct?
Judge McElroy: I understand that. What I'm talking about is in
the overall case.
Mr. Coughlin: well that's candor, isn't it? to put the case wide
open, isn't it? Does that display candor? isn't that the issue in this case?
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: go ahead, I tried to help you as much as I can. go

ahead.
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Steven, did you find any information in your
11
investigation that would be exculpating or tend to prove my character
12
character?
13
14
15
16
S: To prove your character, I don't know would be exculpating, so I

guess I might not understand that question.
Mr. Coughlin: Let's say somebody like Mr. Torson said something
about me that could be seen as showing I had character or-
17
Judge McElroy: This is beyond the scope of direct.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Well, now, wait. Direct was about proving my
19
character, right?
20
Judge McElroy: No, it was about authentication of documents.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Which was for the purpose of?
22
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I'm not going to argue with you
23
anymore. I told you it's beyond the scope of direct. I've given you a lot of
24
leeway in terms of the direct and going beyond the scope of direct.
25
Mr. Coughlin: yes, Your Honor.
26
Judge McElroy: I've given you more than I should have, so at this
27
point it is beyond the scope of direct.
28
336/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: And the scope of direct is chiefly to authenticate

those documents?
Judge McElroy: exactly.
Mr. Coughlin: and so even going into what those documents say, is
5
6
that within the scope? Or is it just?

Judge McElroy: it's what the documents say. he's already testified
that he doesn't- as to what the documents say. And the documents
frankly speak for themselves.
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, your honor. I'd agree with you and I have no
more questions. Thank You Mr. Stevens. can I call Mr. Stevens
directly, then?
Judge McElroy: sure he's here you can call him as your witness
and you're gonna have to proceed with no leading questions.
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Stevens, did you find any exculpating type
material in your investigation?
15
16
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him ask that.
17
Mr. Coughlin: How could he have answered if you objected to it
18
and the judge ruled? Judge McElroy: I mean if he wants to open it
19
wide open, fine?
20
Q: did you find any material that would tend to hurt your case?
21
A: no.
22
Q: No? So, was your communication with Mr. Torson such that
23
would be material that would tend to hurt your case?
24
A: no.
25
Q: And why is that?
26
A: I don't have a case.
27
28
337/433
Q: but the people who you work for and who pay you, their case?
A: No.
Q: No? and Mr. Torson's conversations and letter to you wouldn't
4
5
tend to be something that would be exculpating?

A: again, we're back to exculpating, again. You asked me if it
would help or hurt our case. my case is to investigate your moral
character. It's, I believe, neutral in that regard.
8
ms.
9
Q: right, and that's where I'm saying if you found something that
maybe wasn't neutral to Ms. Kagan's stance where, you know, she wants
to paint me with this brush, right?
10
Judge McElroy: Remember, no editorializing. ask a question.
11
Q: she's got a side, right? she's got an agenda that she's putting
12
13
forth and you're getting paid by her or her employersMs. Kagan: Objection. and I'm going to sustain the objection this
14
question is going nowhere. Q: Can you tell me what Mr. Torson told you
15
or provided you with?
16
A: I can summarize, generally, what he said.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, please do.
18
A: He said no had known you nine months. He met you in an
19
Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, that you could be counted on if asked
20
to chair the appropriate AA meetings. That he was not aware of your
21
criminal background or have of any lawsuits against you. that I
22
believe he said he felt you're a good guy. that he may have known the
23
member of the Nevada State Bar Association ethics Committee that you
24
know.
25
26
27
28
338/433
Mr. Coughlin: It's not trying to prove the truth of the matter
1
2
asserted, is he, Your Honor?
Judge McElroy: Then why is it relevant?
Mr. Coughlin: because it goes to character and candor which I
believe is the chief issue.

Judge McElroy: not in this case. It goes to his candor? it's totally
6
7
irrelevant.
Mr. Coughlin: It goes to my candor.
Judge McElroy: Its hearsay and I am going to sustain.
ms.
Mr. Coughlin: But its not being offered to prove the truth of the
9
10
matter asserted.
Judge McElroy: Then it's not relevant at this point, move on.
11
12
what's the next question.
13
Q: Can you continue tell me what Mr. Torson told you?
14
15
Judge McElroy: it is sustained.
16
Mr. Coughlin: He can tell me what the DMV told him?
17
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, please ask the next question.
18
Mr. Coughlin: he could talk about my father earlier and what my
19
dad told him, but he can't talk about what an exculpating witness tells
20
him?
21
22
23
24
Judge McElroy: I didn't hear him say anything about what your
dad said.
Q: Mr. Stevens, if you found something that was exculpating,
would it be your responsibility to present that?
25
A: As in?
26
Mr. Coughlin: I guess to Ms. Kagan or whoever it is you are doing
27
this investigation for?
28
339/433
A: yes.
Q: Okay, so you would do so?
A: Yes.
Q: and did you tell Ms. Kagan about Mr. Torson, and what he told
you?
A: can I speak about what I tell our attorney?
Judge McElroy: At this point you can.
A: yes I told her.
ms.
9
10
11
Q: And did you speak to Judge Charles McGee?

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, because he was one of the phone numbers
given with Mr. Torson's.
12
A: Okay, wait, the question. You can't editorialize.
13
Mr. Coughlin: I'm trying to jog his memory.
14
Judge McElroy: He says he doesn't remember. unless you have a
15
16
document to present to him let's move on to the next question.

Q: Remember when you originally listed the individuals you
17
spoke with?
18
Did you list Mr. Torson?
19
A: yes.
20
Q:you did? was there any other individuals? I'm not talking about
21
entities like the DMV or this this bar that bar, I am talking about
22
individuals that perhaps Ms. Kagan was given the contact information
23
for as character witnesses that you would have yourself would up
24
investigating?
25
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond his personal knowledge.
26
Judge McElroy: If you know.
27
28
340/433
1
2
S: I'm sorry to say this again, but I couldn't distill what the
question was of that.
Q: Did you talk to anybody else.
S: Other than?
Q: For instance, how did you get Mr. Torson's contact info?
A: He provided to us.
Q: He provided it to you?
A: Yes.
ms.
9
10
11
Q: As in he sent a letter to you or to Ms. Kagan orA: He sent a letter to the State Bar Association. Its in the file.
Q: And that was what spurred you to go and call him? You made a
call, I assume, to him?
12
A: yes.
13
Q: and did you call anybody else?
14
S: with regard to Mr. Torson?
15
Q: With regard to me in your investigation.
16
A: yes.
17
18
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let it stand.
19
Judge McElroy: go ahead ask the next question. he answered yes.
20
Q: Any more of those individuals?
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, asked answered.
22
23
A: I believe I listed them. I can try again. Mark Tratos.
24
Mr. Coughlin: I don't need to know about the DMV and- I recall
25
you saying-
26
Judge McElroy: Let him answer.
27
28
341/433
A: I listed them a few minutes ago. I can go through the list again.
Mr. Tratos, Ms. Smith, Mr. Staheli, the Nevada Bar Association, the
Nevada DMV, the California DMV , your father Timothy Coughlin,
Tony Torson, our Office of General Counsel, our office of Bar
Examiners. it's not an exhaustive list but that's all I can remember off
the top of my head.
7
8
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, are you referring to something right now? Do

you have something in front of you that you're reading from or looking
at? I noticed you're looking down you're not looking at some notes or
something.
10
A: No.
11
Mr. Coughlin: yeah okay.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Did you make any attempt to- I notice you called
14
individuals stemming from all the incidents that Ms. Kagan is
15
pushing, but did you call anybody-
16
17
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it.
18
Q: did you call anybody in an attempt to find out whether there is
19
any exculpating evidence?
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: who?
22
A: I attempted to contact Judge McGee to whom you referred but
23
24
25
the number either you or anybody provided to us was no longer good.

Q: Okay, but now I am confused because a minute ago you didn't
know who Judge McGee was.
26
A: Right.
27
Q: But now you're calling-
28
342/433
A: yes.
Q: okay, and did you contact the Second Judicial District Court
where Judge McGee is on the bench.
A: I don't think I did.
Q: Okay, that is kind of like with the patent thing where you
didn't call them earlier.
ms.
9
Q: Okay, so here you have a district court judge and you have an
opportunity-
10
Judge McElroy: No editorializing. Ask a question.
11
Mr. Coughlin: that's what he is. Editorializing would be giving an
12
13
14
15
opinion on that, right?

Judge McElroy: So, okay, we have a district court judge. What?
what is the question.
Q: Okay, so you are doing an investigation on my character, and a
16
district court judge, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's opinions in
17
California law that say their opinion in moral character cases is to be
18
weighed heavily, it's to count a lot from what I recall-
19
20
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it. There's no questions as far
21
22
23
as I am concerned.
Q: So, why didn't you try to talk to a district court judge and get
his opinion about my character?
24
A: I can answer your question.
25
Mr. Coughlin: You don't need to tell me whether you can answer
26
them or not. Just answer them.
27
28
343/433
A: As I recall Judge McGee, may also be a member of the
California State Bar and as such is required to keep his phone number
current with us. Any attempt I made to contact him would have
included his membership records phone number with the State Bar of
California. Not reaching a person who is a member of the State Bar at
that number, sometimes you move on to more promising leads in
investigating a case.
8
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: what's your next question.

Q: Like a Mark Tratos?
A: in this case or any case?
10
Q: this case?
11
A: I don't know what you're asking.
12
Q: well, I'm asking what would be a more promising lead? A guy
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
like Mark Tratos?

A: I called Mr. Tratos at his California State Bar as400 or
membership records phone number.
Q: Mr. Stevens, I am just asking you if that would be a more
promising lead.
Judge McElroy: He is answering the question. You don't like the
answer. what's the next question?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm asking if that would be considered a more
promising lead development.
22
23
24
Q: would it be more promising because it's more obviously
25
negative?
26
27
Judge McElroy:.Sustained.
28
344/433
Q: Would you train the focus of your investigation on to that
1
2
which appears to beJudge McElroy: At this point I'm going to stop you from asking
3
4
anymore questions because it seems to me that it's totally, at this point,
irrelevant, and we're not getting anywhere. So, I'm going to exercise my
right to limit your cross-examination, at this point, unless you can get
to the point.
Mr. Coughlin: yes, your honor, can you tell me-
Judge McElroy: that means I will give you another five minutes.
ms.
Q: yes, your honor, thank you. can you tell me why you didn't
9
10
make any contact with the Second Judicial District Court in an
11
attempt to reach Judge McGee there.

12
Q: Can you tell me, do you think it would be important to get a
13
14
district court judge's opinion on that?
15
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: No more questions, Your Honor.
18
Judge McElroy: Do you have any more?
19
20
Judge McElroy: thank you, you may step down.
21
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, may we take a ten-minute recess?
22
Judge McElroy: yes.
23
Ms. Kagan: And the State Bar will call Lynn Thingvold to stand
24
next.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, and that's regarding?
26
Ms. Kagan: The rest of the DMV records.
27
Judge McElroy: Okay, back on the record.
28
345/433
Ms. Kagan: The State Bar calls Lynn Thingvold to the stand.
(The oath was administered to Lynn Thingvold.)
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: are you employed.
A: yes.
Q: where are you employed?
A: at the State Bar of California Office of the chief trial counsel.
Q: what is your title.
ms.
9
A: a paralegal.
Q: how long have you been a paralegal with the State Bar?
10
A: Approximately 19 years.
11
Q: did you have an opportunity to work on the matter of the moral
12
character case Zachary B. Coughlin.
13
A: Yes.
14
Q: and as part of your work on this matter were you at all in
15
contact with the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles.
16
A: yes, I believe I sent them a letter.
17
Q: what was the purpose of the letter?
18
A: to obtain more documents from them.
19
Q: when you say more documents was whether other documents
20
that we have received from them that you are aware of my
21
understanding I believe I had a copy of a DMV printout that I received
22
from either you or Mr. Stevens, I can't recall at the moment, and it
23
indicated at the bottom of the document that there were other
24
documents that we may want to want to try and obtain.
25
Ms. Kagan: now, the document that your-
26
Mr. Coughlin: objection, relevance. I don't know what we're doing
27
with DMV stuff at this still-
28
346/433
Mr. Coughlin: we're gonna spend three hours on DMV stuff?
Q: I'd like you as part of the witness binder Exhibit 77, do you
recognize it?
A: Yes.
Q: How?
A: I believe this is the document that I was just referring to from
ms.
9
10
11
12
the Department of Motor Vehicles from Novato and down at the bottom
are there different citation and conviction dates for, I guess,
convictions.
Q: was that the letter that you're referring to that spurred you to
write another letter to the DMV?
13
A: Yes.
14
Q: Your Honor, may I approach? Let the record reflect that I am
15
handing Mr. Coughlin a copy of Exhibit 75. And I am giving the court
16
a copy of Exhibit 75. And the original to the court administrator, and a
17
copy to the witness.
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: objection, your honor, on the basis of this only being
given to me right now.
20
21
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 75 is a five-page exhibit the first page is a
22
letter dated September 19, 2006 from Nevada DMV to Lynn Thingvold.
23
A: correct.
24
Q: Do you recognize this exhibit?
25
A: I do.
26
Q: how do you recognize this exhibit?
27
A: I'm believe I'm the one who offered the letter.
28
347/433
Q: What happened to the letter after you offered it.
A: I believe I just mailed it to the Nevada DMV.
Q: Did you ever receive a response from the Nevada DMV I
response to this letter?
A: I believe so.
Q: Do you recall what that was?
A: I believe it was in response to my request for in the second
paragraph of the letter what I was requesting. I believe they were
ms.
9
responding to that.
Q: And that would be a driver's license data ten year record?
10
A: Correct.
11
Q: Citation charging documents and conviction documents for a
12
conviction on 1/9/03 of speeding citation R115317?
13
A: yes.
14
Q: citation charging documents and conviction documents for
15
conviction on 1/20/05 speeding citation number 0000982687?
16
A: correct.
17
Q: Failure to appear citation number 102053878A and disposition?
18
A: correct.
19
Q: Failure to appear citation number 102497085B and disposition?
20
A: correct.
21
Q: Failure to appear citation number 102497085A and disposition.
22
A: yes.
23
Q: Ms. Thingvold, Id like you to turn to what's been marked
24
Exhibit 64, a 14-page exhibit the first page State of Nevada Department
25
of Motor Vehicles central services Records Division. do you recognize
26
Exhibit 64?
27
28
348/433
A: yes I do. I believe this is what they sent back. I received back
1
2
from them in response to my letter.

Ms. Kagan: Your Honor I request to have Exhibit 64 moved into
3
4
evidence.
Judge McElroy: Its admitted into evidence.
Ms. Kagan: I've got further questions for this witness.
Judge McElroy: Do you have any questions?
Mr. Coughlin: yes, your honor. hello Ms. Thingvold. How are you
ms.
feeling today?
A: I'm okay.
9
10
Q: Can you tell me would what these charges are for?
11
12
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let you ask the question.
13
I'm going to overrule the objection. I'm going to a little detection I'm
14
sorry state the question again for me can you tell me what this
15
basically what this DMV record says? Basically, what was I convicted
16
of.
17
A: Are you referring to Exhibit 64.
18
Mr. Coughlin: yes.
19
A: No, I can't tell you what it indicates that you may have been
20
convicted of, but I did notice at the bottom of this page there was a
21
citation date, a conviction date, a court date, a violation code, a citation
22
number. so now I can't tell you what you were convicted of.
23
24
Q: So, if this was a charge for driving 10 miles over the speed
limit, you would not know?
25
A: No.
26
Ms. Kagan: objection, relevance, and beyond her personal
27
knowledge.
28
349/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule the objection. She's

indicated, no, she wouldn't know. so what's the next question.
Q: so do we know whether these are for speeding or some other
type of infraction?
A: No, I don't know.
Q: we have no idea what these are for?
A: I don't know.
Q: you don't? Okay, did you not follow up on that with the DMV
ms.
9
10
11
when you received these documents?

A: No, I didn't.
Q: so we just know it was a citation for speeding? because I believe
the letter to-
12
A: why don't you just ask the question?
13
Q: okay, well in your letter, Ms. Thingvold, it says you are
14
requesting citation charging documents for my 1/9/03 speeding
15
citation?
16
A: I'm sorry, you are referring to my letter Exhibit 75?
17
Mr. Coughlin: that's correct, paragraph 2, page one, where it
18
begins: I'm requesting the following documents from your agency and
19
and you go on to mention a speeding citation in the last three letters
20
3/1/07 from 1/9/03. in Exhibit 64, would that be the the citation
21
referred? At the bottom of Exhibit 64, page one?
22
Ms. Kagan: Objection, vague.
23
Judge McElroy: okay if you know. I think he's referring to
24
25
00982687?
Mr. Coughlin: well actually, perhaps, but I was referring to the
26
one that ends in 317, hat's right above that R115317 and, prior to that, it
27
says a 1/9/03 speeding-
28
350/433
Judge McElroy: What's your question in reference to?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm trying to establish that that citation is for
speeding.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question.
Mr. Coughlin: we're going to put these into evidence, right? and we
have no idea what they are for? so maybe it would be helpful if we
knew what they were for?
8
ms.
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: I think the court knows what they are for. So, I
don't need any help.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so can we stipulate that these are basic
speeding citations? speeding tickets, no more.
Judge McElroy: No, Exhibit 64 is in evidence and it speaks for
12
itself, okay? there's failures to appear in it. Notices of failures to appear
13
in it. There is citations, and if you want to go into it in detail and- You
14
know? That, that's fine.
15
16
Q: Okay, Ms. Thingvold, do these failures to appear, do they relate

to the speeding citations.
17
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond her personal knowledge.
18
19
Q: can you tell me what these failures to appear relate to?
20
Ms. Kagan: objection, irrelevant and beyond her personal
21
knowledge.
22
23
Q: Ms. Thingvold, in a lot of these failure to appear, one ends in
24
25
085B and one ends in 085A. Are those related to the same ticket?
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond her personal knowledge, beyond the
26
scope of direct, and irrelevant
Judge McElroy: Sustained on beyond
27
the scope and also on beyond her personal knowledge.
28
351/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
Q: Ms. Thingvold, can you confirm on page 2 of Exhibit 64 that

those failure to appears stem from 2000 and 2001.
A: objection, relevance and beyond her personal knowledge,
document speaks for itself.
Judge McElroy: I overrule the objection, but the document does
speak for itself.
A: I don't have any other knowledge other than what the
document says.
Q: and the document says for all three of these failure to appears
that are listed here the 878A and the 085A and the 085B, which both,
10
the A and B ones, both stem from the same date, 5/31/01 and the 87A
11
stems from 2/24/00? Those are the dates of those, correct? so the are
12
some time ago, right?

A: I can only say what this piece of paper says and it has an end
13
14
15
16
date of the date that you just gave.

Q: Okay, and can failure to appear be for failure to have proof of
insurance?
17
Ms. Kagan: Objection, beyond her personal knowledge.
18
Judge McElroy: and that's sustained, based on that.
19
A: can failures to appear stem from a failure to have proof of
20
registration or an expired registration.
21
22
Judge McElroy: Its sustained and it's also irrelevant. the issues is
23
you didn't report these failures to appear and were supposed to report
24
them.
25
Mr. Coughlin: And that's for sure, right?
26
Judge McElroy: that's the issue.
27
28
352/433
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: because the application says for sure you have to
report a speeding ticket?
Judge McElroy: failures to appear.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but does it say you have to report a speeding
5
6
ticket?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, it says what it says. let's move on
and ask the next question. I'm suggesting that you might want to go to
what's relevant.
ms.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: ok, yes, your honor.

Q: Ms. Thingvold, if I could direct you to Exhibit 1, page 12. Can
11
you tell me is speeding a violation does that come within what's
12
required from the second paragraph's instruction as to what you need to
13
report?
14
15
Ms. Kagan: Objection, beyond her personal knowledge, relevance,

beyond the scope of direct.
16
17
Q: Can you see where it says in answering the following questions
18
you should include all such incidents and convictions. this is in the
19
State Bar's application.
20
Ms. Kagan: Same objection, your honor.
21
Mr. Coughlin: I haven't finished my question, your honor, and Ms.
22
23
24
Kagan certainly got to read all afternoon.

Judge McElroy: Continue with your question. go ahead and finish
your question and the let the objection.
25
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just telling you what this is from. This is from
26
the State Bar's application to practice law, moral character. it's under
27
the sections which direct you what convictions you need to report. it
28
353/433
says in answering the following questions you should include all such
incidents and convictions no matter how minor the incident, and it goes
on to tell you what that means. traffic violations which must be
reported under this question include failure to appear, driving without
a license, driving with a suspended license, and reckless driving as well
as other traffic violations that result in a misdemeanor or felony
convictions can you tell me in your research in these documents that
you are here to verify, do those speeding tickets qualify as any of those?
ms.
9
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance, beyond the scope of direct,

beyond her personal knowledge.
10
Mr. Coughlin: How is that not relevant?
11
Judge McElroy: The issue is- I'm going to sustain the objection.
12
and I don't think it it's relevant in terms of coming from this witness.
13
Mr. Coughlin: okay, thank you your honor.
14
Judge McElroy: in other words, her interpretation of this
15
16
17
application is meaningless to this court.

Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Thingvold, do you perform
legal research for Ms. Kagan?
18
19
20
Q: Ms. Thingvold, can you tell me what type of work you did on
21
this case?
22
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond the scope of direct.
23
24
Q: Can you tell me how you would describe the purpose of your
25
testimony here today, what it was getting across?
26
27
28
354/433
Mr. Coughlin: because I don't understand how this differs from
Mr. Stephens authenticating these documents early earlier. how at all
is this different as a result?
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 64 went into evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: But it's the same documents as what is in-
Judge McElroy: it's not all the same but you know what? you need
7
8
to ask the next question.

Q: In Exhibit 64, page 3, does that say that with regard to failure
ms.
to appear, that one can pay a late fee or fine for failing to appear and
taking care of whatever underlying citation there was and then that
10
thereupon one will be able to drive again, have their license-
11
Ms. Kagan: objection relevance .
12
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead let her look at look at page
13
three, and.
14
A: I don't know, I'd have to read it.
15
Judge McElroy: Why don't you give her an opportunity to read it.
16
A: your question, again?
17
Q: Does this document basically say that in order to prevent the
18
suspension of one's driving privilege, one need paid the fine related to
19
this failure to appear, and thereupon doing so the driving privilege
20
will not be suspended?
21
A: I believe it says you can prevent the suspension if you pay the
22
court fine and obtain a clearance from the court before 6/27. I think
23
those were two different things.
24
Q: Okay, thank you. and on page 4, can you tell me, dealing with
25
citation 085B, which is mentioned in your letter of Exhibit 75, does that
26
say that this charge relates to having proof of insurance?
27
A: it appears to.
28
355/433
1
2
Q: Okay, so, the failure to appear then would be for not paying the
fine and presenting proof of insurance on time.
Judge McElroy: It is also irrelevant.
Mr. Coughlin: how is this relevant?
Judge McElroy: Its a notice of a failure to appear. you were
supposed to report it to the State Bar. you did not report it to the State
Bar. Its irrelevant.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, have we established that I didn't report it to

the State Bar?
10
Judge McElroy: yes, I think you admitted that you did.
11
Mr. Coughlin: No, I don't recall doing that.
12
Judge McElroy: well, anyway it didn't appear on your application.
13
14
let's go on to the next question.

Mr. Coughlin: well, now, the convictions- the speeding tickets,
15
don't need to be on the application, right, your honor? those aren't listed
16
within page 12 of the application, Exhibit 1.
17
Judge McElroy: I can't function as your attorney.
18
Mr. Coughlin: I know but I am just asking for relevancy's sake.
19
why are we talking about speeding tickets when they're not even
20
convictions.
21
Judge McElroy: We are talking about failures to appear.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Half of this day was spent showing speeding tickets.
23
Judge McElroy: Go on to the next question. what is the next
24
question.
25
Mr. Coughlin: I don't have any more questions, your honor.
26
Judge McElroy: you may step down.
27
28
356/433
Mr. Coughlin: Your honor, for clarification, we didn't know what
1
2
these charges were for. Exhibit 64-page 8 indicates the one ending in
085 is for an expired license plate.
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: okay, just so we know. I mean to march into court
and say you were convicted of these three things and have no idea what
they areJudge McElroy: The issue is failure to report, failures to appear,
8
ms.
9
and failure to report. Okay, so, Mr. Coughlin, do you have any other
witnesses?
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, the only other witness I have is Dr.
10
11
Tucker, but I understand that we're going to convene again on March
12
17th.
13
Judge McElroy: And h definitely will be able to appear in person?
14
Ms. Kagan: I've yet to here back from him, I've left two messages.
15
Judge McElroy: Okay, and Mr. Coughlin, do you have any more
16
evidence?
17
Mr. Coughlin: I would like to call Ms. Kagan to the stand.
18
Judge McElroy: you're not going to be allowed to call her. So, any
19
other witnesses?
20
Mr. Coughlin: may I ask why?
21
Judge McElroy: No. Do you have any witnesses?
22
Mr. Coughlin: I would also like to point out that citation-
23
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin
24
Mr. Coughlin: 878A is for an expired license plate as well.
25
Judge McElroy: Do you have any other witnesses?
26
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, I would like to call myself.
27
Judge McElroy: you can.
28
357/433
Mr. Coughlin: And testify in the narrative format.
Judge McElroy: yes, you do. Yes, you can and also you are under
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
oath, you understand that?

Mr. Coughlin: yes,Your Honor.
By Mr. Coughlin:
A: I'd like to point out that Exhibit 1, page 12 under convictions,
speeding tickets are not listed under what needs to be reported./
Mr. Coughlin: and. further to address the candor issue, Id like to
point out some things that were reported. Your Honor, every arrest I
10
had was reported promptly to both state bars and the things that Ms.
11
Kagan is saying have not been reported our paling in comparison to
12
those. they're the types of small clerical oversights that previous
13
opinions from this Court have mentioned as, particularly in a case
14
where one has reported something far more serious, the court has
15
deemed those to be so minor as to be inconsequential in bearing upon
16
issue candor and character. Specifically, in this regard, I would point to
17
Ms. Kagan's mincing attempts at distinguishing between being a patent
18
attorney and being a patent agent.
19
Ms. Kagan: I object to that characterization.
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: Further, a failure to appear for something as minor
22
as not having proof of insurance or being late to pay the fine for proof
23
of insurance, or being late to send in the fine for not having an
24
expiration sticker on one's license plate is a mincing attempt as well at
25
showing some lack of candor on Ms. Kagan's part, particularly where
26
someone has self-reported in regard to alcohol use, thus resulting an
27
extensive invasion of privacy and involvement with the LAP program,
28
358/433
as well as where someone has reported an arrest and subsequent
conviction for a dry reckless and has reported the movie theater arrest,
which didn't even lead to a conviction. I point out that under page 12
the application, such an arrest which didn't lead to a conviction need
not be reported. So if that doesn't go above and beyond what's called for
in terms of being having candor and being forthright with the bar, I
would be surprised. Id also like to note in regard to the bar's position
that I somehow inadequately reported the academic dishonesty
ms.
investigation that Exhibit 1, page 25 wherein I have an update to my
application has language in it that is pretty much taken directly from
10
Mr. Philip Burn's, the Student Judicial Affairs Officer UNLV, his one
11
page, and I believe this is the exhibit that we looked at with Dean
12
Smith, his one-page summation of what his investigation and his
13
ruling says. In that I quote from Exhibit 1, page 25, this is paragraph 3
14
after this the bottom of it: after the Student Judicial Affairs Officer
15
for my law school conducted a full investigation the matter was
16
resolved with a finding that no academic dishonesty took place on my
17
part. How Ms. Kagan can try to turn this into I somehow didn't report
18
this or inaccurately reported it when that's language taken directly
19
from Mr. Burn's ruling on the matter, I don't understand.
20
May I have one second to get my index, your honor?
21
Judge McElroy: Yes.
22
Mr. Coughlin: one other thing, and I'm just trying to stick to
23
things that really stand out to me and not take up any more of your
24
time with things that I don't have a good faith belief are important to
25
this case is the LAP program. I don't know if you've ever seen a LAP
26
program brochure like those that are out in the hallway before your
27
courtroom. they go to great lengths to stress how confidential the
28
359/433
program is and I would say that I have trouble understanding how this
program is at all confidential when I entered an abeyance agreement
with the State Bar which called for and Ill quote verbatim the LAP
program to monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse.
5
6
Ms. Kagan: Objection, what is Mr. Coughlin quoting verbatim

from?
Mr. Coughlin: That would be the abeyance agreement between
myself and the State Bar dated July 2004. that would be Exhibit 38,
ms.
wherein on page two paragraph 3 it says: Coughlin's recovery from
alcohol abuse will be monitored by an agent from the LAP program. I
10
don't understand, one how a program that so openly purports to be
11
confidential and stresses that in all its literature and advertisements
12
in bar journals and the like and can result in someone like myself
13
having all their medical records gone through-
14
15
16
Judge McElroy: Didn't you sign a waiver of confidentiality for a

release of informationMr. Coughlin: well, that's what I'm getting at. is this just the
17
biggest Catch-22 in the world? Where we're going to say we are such a
18
confidential program, now sign this waiver releasing your
19
confidentiality-
20
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: That happened in this case, so let's move on to

another issue.
Mr. Coughlin: they do that to everybody, every single applicant.
So why say you are a confidential program. I don't get it.
24
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you waived it, move on.
25
Mr. Coughlin: In my narrative testimony I will say I don't get it-
26
Judge McElroy: you obviously don't. So, let's go on.
27
Mr. Coughlin: no, I really don't get it.
28
360/433
Judge McElroy: that's clear.
Mr. Coughlin: further, this involvement with the LAP program
whereupon I entered into an agreement with the State Bar which says
that my recovery and I'm quoting from Exhibit 38 page two paragraph
3 as I did earlier my recovery from alcohol abuse will be monitored by
an agent from the LAP program. how that can turn into getting all my
medical records and presenting them to the bench? how that can turn
into having that in an opinion? how that can amount to if you look at
ms.
9
the LAP's- and in this goes to something we spoke about in one of our
teleconferences, Your Honor wherein, you said thatJudge McElroy: Please. The issue is whether you have the
10
11
requisite moral character to become a lawyer in the State of California.
12
Confine your testimony to that issue.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, Your Honor, I believe my testimony right
13
14
now does speak to thatJudge McElroy: A waiver of confidentiality has nuthin' to do with
15
16
it.
17
Mr. Coughlin: does it have to do with one's candor? if one has been
18
battered around and treated by Sipowicz on NYPD Blue, is one going to
19
be all that candid? if one has no faith in the people who are-
20
21
22
Judge McElroy: Okay, what's? come on, let's move on with your
testimony?
Mr. Coughlin: well, it's you need to show candor, but is that in a
23
vacuum or does that depend who I'm talking to? you know, if I'm
24
getting abused and having vexatious and nefarious tactics thrown at
25
me am I still supposed to be completely candid?
26
Ms. Kagan: Objection to the characterization of that.
27
Judge McElroy: Yes.
28
361/433
Mr. Coughlin: In the face of all that?
Judge McElroy: in the face of all that.
Mr. Coughlin: should the Duke lacrosse players been completely
candid to the runaway rogue prosecutor?
Judge McElroy: I am not going to answer any more questions. I am
not the person on trial on here, you are.

Mr. Coughlin: I'm testifying. that was more of an extemporaneous
8
ms.
question.
Judge McElroy: Then, please, testify.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: That was a theoretical question.
11
Judge McElroy: I understand that, move on. Okay, I'm giving you
12
15 minutes and then I'm wrapping this up in terms of your testimony
13
and you.
Mr. Coughlin: So, I get 15 minutes but we can take an hour and a
14
15
half to verify documents from the DMV?
16
Judge McElroy: yes.
17
Mr. Coughlin: To prove speeding tickets that didn't even need to
18
be reported?
19
Judge McElroy: That's correct, go ahead.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I just want to be sure. So, I'm still confused as
21
22
toJudge McElroy: confusion is not what you're supposed to testify
23
about. just please testify as to rebutting the State Bar's position that
24
you do lack the requisite moral character to be a lawyer in California.
25
that's what you're on trial for, what you are on the stand for right now.
26
That is not evidence. Don't tell me you're confused or that you don't
27
understand. that is not evidence, your confusion.
28
362/433
Mr. Coughlin: I feel that the State Bar's assertions that I don't
have this character that they speak of are without merit. chief among
the State Bar's assertions relate to my reporting of academic
investigations or something stemming from my time at UNLV and that
would relate to the questions in the application. Exhibit one, for
instance, wherein it calls for reporting any sort of censure or
punishment meted out by a school. I'm saying in my application not
only did I in my opinion say everything that had anything to do with
ms.
that moving a computer issue. I reported I was fined a $100. I reported I
moved it. the only real issue we seem to have is how far I moved it. I
10
said 10 feet. the witness says it's in a room that's all oblong, that's no
11
larger than this room. so to say I somehow didn't report that I think is
12
baseless or that my reporting of it was somehow inaccurate I don't see
13
where there's an issue with that at all. so that will lead to the State Bar
14
saying there's an issue with my reporting of the paper investigation for
15
which Mark Tratos' testimony was to speak to. well I direct the court's
16
attention to Exhibit 1, page 25, wherein if you consider the last two
17
paragraphs, and this goes to candor and rebutting the State Bar's
18
assertion that I was somehow misleading in my reporting of this, and I
19
know Ive already hit on this, but I just want to take one second to point
20
this out again is that I did report there was a investigation. An
21
academic dishonesty investigation, whereupon the State Bar certainly
22
able to get the story from someone besides me, you know? so largely just
23
reporting it in itself pretty much in my opinion it covers the candor
24
aspect of it. now granted, if someone goes on to tell a bunch of lies
25
about it then that would prove to be otherwise. but I take language
26
straight out of Mr. Burn's report. I'd also like to mention that I'm not
27
entirely sure that I didn't provide that report to the State Bar. That is
28
363/433
not clear to me because I believe there's a good chance that I, or Mr.
Fishkin, my prior attorney would have provided that reports to the
State Bar.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lacks foundation.
Mr. Coughlin: but did you ever prove that you did or that I didn't?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't recall it ever being proved how they got a
8
ms.
9
hold of that report and whether or not itJudge McElroy: The question is did you give them this report? did
you give them this report?
10
11
Judge McElroy: ok so let's move on to the next.
12
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but a characterization? Okay, but clearly in
13
page 25 my addendum or something to my application I say there's an
14
academic dishonesty investigation. this is the third paragraph. I say
15
the matter was resolved with a finding that no academic dishonesty
16
took place on my part. that's accurate. Dean Smith testified as much.
17
Mr. Burns's opinion letter on this says the same thing. so where the
18
State Bar is saying I was inaccurate or misleading, I'm not sure? I
19
gather it's from the sentence that says there was a formal letter of
20
warning but if we refer to Mr. Burn's-
21
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 53.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Thank you, your honor. if we refer to that I'll
23
directed the last paragraph whereupon Mr. Burns says I'm
24
recommending this case be resolved on an informal basis. you have 10
25
working days after receipt of an informal resolution letter to request
26
that a formal hearing take place, all sanctions offered through the
27
informal process will be void, the formal hearing Committee, yet you
28
364/433
know and it goes on. so that language to me certainly sounds like this
is informal. Further,in paragraph 2, there's further language that
points to an informal tone to this, this whole investigation and the
resolution thereof wherein, and I quote, in paragraph 2 line 4: in
addition, it appears that academic dishonesty did not occur. I'm sorry,
above that. after an investigation it appears that the matter of your
remarks has been informally resolved between you and your
instructors. in addition, it appears that academic dishonesty did not
ms.
9
occur. so how the State Bar can go on to say I somehow inaccurately

reported this such that you should deny me a law license after five
10
years of fighting this battle with the State Bar and their deep pockets
11
and extensive set of resources that they have to use in presenting
12
something like ten witnesses and having-
13
Ms. Kagan: Objection, motion to strike.
14
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, it appears that you are running on
15
and I think what I need to do is direct your attention to what the court
16
is interested in. I've heard enough information in terms of what you
17
didn't report on your application in terms of the student investigation,
18
okay? I've heard enough evidence on that. The issues here are the
19
failure to report the Department of Motor Vehicles violations that is
20
the failure to appears. There's also the civil judgment and defaults that
21
you didn't report. there's also your employment history, your address
22
history and your financial obligations that you didn't report. you
23
should direct the remainder of your testimony to dealing with those
24
issues. they were not reported. they were material omissions that were
25
not reported. deal with that.
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: thank you, your honor, I appreciate your focusing

me in that regard. If I had telephone conversations with Ms. Kagan
28
365/433
that would amount to reporting the default judgment, would that be
pertinent?
Ms. Kagan: objection.
Judge McElroy: you can testify to whatever you want to testify to.
all I'm saying is that they're not on your application and they're not
winning and you need to provide us with an explanation as to why they
were not on your application, why they were not given an update until
a certain point. we're not giving an update until 2/15/07.
ms.
9
10
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: not a written update until that point.

Judge McElroy: Not a written update.
Mr. Coughlin: Obviously, the telephone call to Ms. Kagan would
have taken place prior to that.
Judge McElroy: that's all hearsay. I don't know. it's inherently
13
unreliable, it is just your verbal assertions. but if that's the evidence
14
you want to present that's fine.
15
Mr. Coughlin: And can Ms. Kagan be made to speak to that?
16
Judge McElroy: No.
17
Mr. Coughlin: so we can't we can't ask her that? Ms. Kagan is not
18
the Committee of Examiners. you were supposed to report this to the
19
Committee of Examiners. she is not a member of the Committee of
20
Examiners. you need to offer an explanation as to why you did not
21
report these things.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, and that's true even when Ms. Kagan came
into the picture?
Judge McElroy: that's true even when Ms. Kagan came into the
picture.
Mr. Coughlin: so anything I report to her cannot be said to have
been reported to the State Bar? So, in essence, if I didn't send my update
28
366/433
to the State Bar, I still haven't reported it to them, right? about the
financial stuff?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, please just address the issues.
there's nothing until Feb, or September 15, 2007. prior to that it wasn't
reported, why not?
Mr. Coughlin: And September 15, 2007 is the update I sent? The 30
to 40 pages with the something like 800 AA signatures that show a one-
hour meeting for each signature? of course the phone call with Ms.
ms.
9
10
Kagan would have taken place prior to this. I find the fact that Ms.
Kagan is not acknowledging this, or appears not to be acknowledging
this further proves-
11
Ms. Kagan: I object on the characterization of this testimony.
12
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection and strike it.
13
14
15
16
You need to deal with why you didn't report this.

Mr. Coughlin: I believe a prosecutor has a duty to report
exculpating evidenceJudge McElroy: let me just give you an example. have you ever
17
been in business for yourself you reported that you were in business for
18
yourself October 2003 until 2005. at that time to my knowledge, Ms.
19
Kagan was not even on the case. why wasn't it reported in 2003 that you
20
were, in fact, an owner and operator of your own business when you
21
were supposed to report it? those are the kind of issues I'm interested in.
22
I'm not interested in a diatribe against the prosecutor. you are the
23
person that is sitting here on trial. so you need to address those issues. I
24
would suggest that you stay away from impugning Ms. Kagan. that is
25
not helping your case. you need to take responsibility for your material
26
omissions from this application.
27
28
367/433
Mr. Coughlin: Okay. I do need to take responsibility for not
reporting the financial debts I owed earlier. for not reporting the
business, although I can't say I knew I had to report that, I know there's
language that says you have a continuing duty and if you look at this
application. you know and you read it verbatim and you can
continually ask yourself over this five-year period, do I need to do any
of this stuff then you might say well yeah I do because right here in
page 30 you know paragraph 2 sub 1 it says you need to report. But, I'm
ms.
afraid I only reported the things that really I was quite sure needed to
be reported. things like being arrested things that stood out as having
10
you know a salient quality to them within this application. I've seen
11
case law where someone to failed to report some minor aspect of
12
something related to a question in this application, however they
13
reported something more serious, like an arrest and the court took note
14
of that and it weighed the relative importance of each reporting and
15
found something like not reporting failure to appear that stems from
16
not having proof of registration and paying the fine late as to
17
inconsequential to affect the decision whether or not one should be
18
getting a law license after going to law school and passing the bar exam
19
and incurring a great deal of student debt. I mean I as public policy
20
issue here, I think a certain amount of, I don't want to say common
21
sense, but I think a certain amount of- that's just, that's just too harsh.
22
we're going to turn this guy's law license down because he didn't report
23
he had a speeding ticket? that's a little harsh I think and I think that
24
sends a bad message out to people about this profession and sends a bad
25
message out to prospective attorneys. so I agree with you I do need to
26
take responsibility about reporting things like the financial debts,
27
about reporting that I was in business for myself. with regard to the
28
368/433
judgment, the civil judgment or first with regard to the unlawful
retainers I can't say i- I didn't realize that needed to be reported until
some point probably after Ms. Kagan indicated that to me. I didn't
realize that there was case numbers and cases against me. I thought I
had been evicted, I didn't realize the implications of that. if there was
some hearing that took place later I didn't know about it and so
hopefully that can be seen as somewhat of a mitigating factor in my not
reporting it although, certainly I do have a duty to know this
ms.
9
application backwards and forwards from what I can tell and perhaps I
could have somehow known that. But, I don't see- I don't know that we
10
proved that I had knowledge there was an unlawful detainer action
11
against me. I think we can prove that I had been evicted, but I don't
12
know about if those are the same thing. maybe they are, but that's a
13
subtle distinction. with regard to the judgment by the Uni-shippers
14
that to me seems more obvious that that's something that needs to be
15
reported, however I can say that at the time that judgment occurred
16
which my understanding is was some time in early 2005 or early 2006,
17
and just by way of reference, I was terminated from the LAP program
18
in early 2006? so whether or not I have a duty to report anything after
19
I've been terminated from the LAP program, I don't know.. and even
20
prior to that I don't know that I have a duty to report something. now
21
there might be a rule saying just this but that I have a duty to report
22
something after the State Bar has turned me down as well. at that
23
point, as I understand that I'm involved in litigation. you know it's a
24
little bit different than someone who is originally applying for
25
something and I think it's important to note that in my original
26
application from 02 I don't believe the State Bar has shown that there
27
was any anything of substance that I failed to include or that I was
28
369/433
somehow misleading about. all the issues the State Bar is taking is
from events that occurred some of them in late 05 that we weren't
reported. at that stage of the game, I'm in litigation with the State Bar
or earlier than that I had an attorney, Mr. Fishkin. Mr. Fishkin knew I
was running a business. whether or not reporting that to him is
tantamount to reporting to the State , I don't know. I certainly didn't
tell him not to report. I would submit to you that I did make mention of
my need to report things to Ms. Kagan early on into it to the start of
ms.
9
this litigation and that Ms. Kagan indicated me that I would have an
opportunity-
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not able to say what she said to me?
12
Judge McElroy: okay it's not going in for the truth of the matter
13
stated, it's going to, it's relevant to your state of mind, ok Ill let it in.
14
Mr. Coughlin: ok thank you. Ms. Kagan said to me that I would
15
have an opportunity to update the State Bar with regard to the things
16
that needed to be updated in connection with my application. at some
17
point Ms. Kagan must have changed her mind because she filed her
18
application which-
19
20
21
Ms. Kagan: I object to this testimony. there's no documentation to

that effect and I can't get on the stand and rebut these statements.
Judge McElroy: it's not going in for the truth of the matter stated
22
it's relevant to his state of mind and how he. I will go ahead and let him
23
testify.
24
Mr. Coughlin: thank you and so if we're talking about not
25
reporting that judgment in connection with the shipping charges my
26
contention would be that you could consider my statements to Ms.
27
Kagan as reporting it which would have been sometime in late mid-to-
28
370/433
late 06 and if the judgment didn't come until I believe around either
later 2005 or early 06 then in the context of being involved in this
litigation, I don't know that there is a duty to report it at that phase. I
don't know that I knew there was a duty to report it or that I
remembered that the application had language to the effect that
certain things involving administrative hearings or something like
that need to be reported. I don't know that and if indeed I did become
aware of a need to do that or became cognizant that that might be
ms.
something one needs to report I can't say that I knew that I wouldn't
have an opportunity to appeal that prior to needing to report that or
10
that I was sure that my appeal avenues had been exhausted in that
11
regard. as far as not reporting stuff that's pretty much all I wish to say
12
about that.
I can think of some other things I would go on about but if there's
13
14
something you could direct my focus toJudge McElroy: No, I think you've covered the issues in terms of
15
16
what this court needs to know.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so if I can just be sure, your honor, before I
17
18
say I don't have anything else I'd like to-
19
Judge McElroy: discuss the academic dishonesty investigation.
20
Mr. Coughlin: and the reporting is what's really important, isn't
21
22
it?
Judge McElroy: yes. you have reported the law school computer.
23
you have dealt with that issue. dealt with the employment history and
24
your termination. You- we, you dealt with the U.S. Patent and
25
Trademark Office.
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, your honor, my termination from

where?
28
371/433
Judge McElroy: termination from law firms.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay. And that is important?
Judge McElroy: you dealt with the issue of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. you dealt with the substance abuse issue. You dealt
with the conviction issue, and now you've dealt with the material
omissions, issue.
Mr. Coughlin: The conviction for dry reckless?
Judge McElroy: yes.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, can I move to strike anything regarding the

movie arrest.
10
Judge McElroy: No.
11
Mr. Coughlin: okay, does it matter that those aren't required to be
12
13
reported by the application?

Judge McElroy: that issue goes to behavior/ that's not to
14
reporting. Okay, and we have dealt with the civil judgments in default.
15
dealt with the address financial obligations.
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: I would like to make a few statements about the not
reporting of things like the address, and-
18
Judge McElroy: Go ahead.
19
Mr. Coughlin: Upon a review of this and the dates of my address,
20
you can tell, and in fact my reporting arrests that didn't even need to
21
be reported to the State Bar, which I did in my original application
22
with regard to the movie theater arrest, but also in my prompt
23
reporting of the DUI to dry reckless conviction arrest, you see a trend
24
here. It's anything that, that you know, obviously needed to be reported
25
was promptly reported. I believe yourself, myself, and Ms. Kagan, we
26
could point to issues or situations where we are vaguely aware or we
27
might be aware that some prospective attorney didn't report something
28
372/433
like a DUI or didn't report this or that and got away with it and that's
not what's going on here. I reported my arrest promptly. I reported the
movie theater arrest which wasn't even required to be reported. also I
went in and brought up the subject of alcoholism with a Committee
that has a LAP program in its infancy that perhaps hasn't gotten all
the kinks out yet. So, to me there's so much candor going on here that to
try to say that that's undone by not reporting an expired license plate
ticket failure to appear doesn't seem right to me. but also just what I
ms.
9
really wanted to get at was, okay, they are saying you're not really
keeping us updated in the way we'd like to see an applicant do it. you're
10
not giving us your address history promptly. you're not reporting
11
speeding tickets, although I don't think those are supposed to be
12
reported, but things like . and I can say, absolutely, I agree with you, I
13
should have done a better job of that. I should have been more
14
fastidious, in particular, and prompt. But, I don't know that I can
15
communicate to you quite what it's like going to through a five-year
16
thing like this with three different state bars. and it's been longer than
17
five years, because all this, what you see in these exhibits started to
18
occur and late 2001. and so now we're in May 2005, or 2007. So that is
19
something like six years and change of going through this. and that's on
20
top of taking and passing three bar Exams, getting out of law school,
21
going through law school not on somebody else's dime,
22
but through a great deal of student loans, and saving, and sacrificing.
23
And, so you know, for a lot of people that's tiring enough, just doing
24
that, and then going starting a job where you get paid a good deal of
25
money is tiring.
26
27
Well, I didn't do that. I did all that and then I got three and a
half years of waiting and litigation with Nevada bar. I got to go to, I'm
28
373/433
thankful for this now, but I got to go to something like 800 AA
meetings. I got to have an extensive involvement with the State Bar
which is culminated in a trial that's going to last at least four days.
And this is in the context of having documented, established chronic
back and neck pain, ADD, and perhaps some other issues that I would
ask if you have the time please review my doctors records that are
included in these statements. Because, I think, if I'm going to go to the
trouble to pay all these people to make these records on my dime, in,
ms.
you know, which if we get into the LAP stuff will show a LAP
statement where they say nobody will be turned away because they
10
can't pay. We will pay for you if you need help with the LAP. that
11
wasn't the case with me because I wound up paying all these doctors for
12
their reports and and a lot of stuff. so my involvement with LAP and
13
the financial difficulties of all this in combination with some of the
14
physical problems I face on a daily basis like chronic back and neck
15
pain, ADD and you know whatever other issues we want to talk about.
16
and I'm certainly not going to get into alcohol related things because of
17
the bureaucratic morass that has surrounded any attempt to have an
18
honest discussion about that with the State Bar. but all that in total
19
can wear you down a great deal. and so you may not be on top of your
20
game and you not might not be reporting where I lived from when to
21
when to the State Bar as promptly as you should. but I would just ask
22
that you try to give that some consideration. and other than that I don't
23
think I have a great deal to say other than, I think it's a shame if
24
someone like Judge McGee, a district court judge, doesn't get have an
25
opportunity to-
26
27
28
374/433
Judge McElroy: and I'm going to sustain the objection at this
1
2
point. do you have any more evidence?

Mr. Coughlin: we're still, I mean, I was I had a urine and blood
3
4
screen taken at this independent medical exam. we're still going to get
into all that, right?
Judge McElroy: With the doctor.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so no, as of now, your honor, I don't.
Judge McElroy: so you're reserving the rest of your testimony
ms.
until after the doctor testifies.

Mr. Coughlin: Yes, your honor.
9
10
Judge McElroy: Do you have any cross-examination?
11
Ms. Kagan: only the question of whether Mr. Coughlin wants to
12
admit the doctor's report into evidence at this time.

Mr. Coughlin: is that is that pressing at this point? Can I take
13
14
some time to review it further?
15
Judge McElroy: Sure, its up to you.
16
Mr. Coughlin: If the court doesn't mind, I'd like to have the
17
opportunity to review it further before coming back.
18
Judge McElroy: Yes. That's fine, okay, any other?
19
20
Judge McElroy: Okay, so we will come back on Thursday at 10:30,
21
next Thursday, May 17th.

Ms. Kagan: If for some reason the doctor can not come back on that
22
23
day?
24
Judge McElroy: Notify the court as soon as possible and also the
applicant. We are off the record.
25
26
27
28
375/433
1
2
3
5/22/07 Transcript:
Judge McElroy: This is a matter of Zachary Coughlin. Today's
date is May 22nd, 2007 and it is the fourth day in the trial matter
resuming with the Committee's rebuttal of the applicant's case. Mr.
Coughlin is not here. this is their fourth day of the trial and it's the
fourth day that he's been late and we have waited 45 minutes. other
times we waited an hour, and other times we waited an hour and a half.
ms.
Mr. Coughlin called the court at a quarter to nine and said that he was
10 minutes away. the court called him again at 9:45, excuse me 9:30 and
10
told him to be here. he said that he was the 10 minutes away. and he's
11
still not here. So, we're going to resume without him, okay?
12
13
14
(The oath was administered to Dr. Douglas Tucker, MD)

By Ms. Kagan:
Q. morning, Dr. Tucker, I just wanna go through a little bit of
15
your background before we go on discussing this matter. where did you
16
receive your education?
17
A. I went to undergraduate and medical school at University of
18
Michigan in Ann Arbor and I did my medical internship, my
19
psychiatric residency, and my first fellowship at the UCLA in Los
20
Angeles, my second psychiatric fellowship in forensic psychiatry at
21
Rush Presbyterian saint Lukes Hospital in Chicago.
22
Q: are you currently in practice?
23
A: yes.
24
Q: An what is your practice?
25
A: my practice is general adult outpatient psychiatry.
26
Q: do you have any specializations?
27
28
376/433
A: yes I do. I am board certified in general psychiatry, I'm also
1
2
board certified in addiction psychiatry, and forensic psychiatry. I also
am certified by the American Society of Addiction Medicine.
Q: can you just explain what the field of addiction medicine is?
A: yes. Well, addiction psychiatry and addiction medicine are
related but slightly different. addiction medicine would be all
physician, essentially, who deal with addictions, the physical and
biological as well as the emotional and psychiatric dimensions.
ms.
Addiction psychiatry is more of a psychiatric perspective, so we are
interested in the biology and what's going on in the brain and the body
10
of the addict or alcoholic but we also are interested in the psychosocial
11
aspects. These are, after all, bio-psychosocial disorders. There are
12
biological, psychological, and social determinants of addictive disorders
13
14
15
Q: Dr. Tucker, please look at exhibit 71A which is the curriculum

vitae of Douglas Tucker, MD. Do you recognize this exhibit?
16
A. yes. this is my most recent CV.
17
Q. is the information contained on this CV accurate?
18
A. yes it is.
19
K. I move to have Exhibit 71A moved into evidence.
20
Judge McElroy: 71A is moved into evidence and the record should
21
reflect that Mr. Coughlin has entered the court at ten to ten and we
22
have started with the direct examination of Dr. Tucker. Did you have a
23
chance to evaluate Zachary Coughlin?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q: When did you perform that evaluation?
26
A. We met at my office on April 27th of this year.
27
28
377/433
Ms. Kagan: actually I wanna go back for a seconds. the bar
tenders Dr. Tucker as an expert in the field of addiction medicine and
psychiatry.
Judge McElroy: do you have any cross-examination on that issue?
C. No, Your Honor.
M. Okay, he's an expert in the field of addiction psychiatry.
Q. Going back to the evaluation. after you performed the
8
ms.
9
evaluation did you issue a report in this matter?

A. yes, I did.
Q. Look at exhibit 71, which is on the letterhead of Douglas E.
10
Tucker, MD, and it is dated May 7, 2007, and it is In Re Zachary B.
11
Coughlin and it is case number 06-M-13755. Do you recognize this?
12
A. yes.
13
Q. how do you recognize the exhibit?
14
A. This is the report that I wrote in this case.
15
Q. Dr. Tucker, is this report accurate.
16
A. yes.
17
18
Judge McElroy: okay I think there should be more of a
19
foundation. Why don't you set up more of a foundation.
20
Ms. Kagan: So what was the purpose of the report, Dr. Tucker?
21
A. Well, I was asked to perform a forensic psychiatric evaluation
22
of Mr. Coughlin, focusing in particular on issues of alcohol or other
23
substance abuse and to determine if he had any diagnoses, and, if so,
24
what kind of monitoring or treatment would be recommended.
25
Q. Did you do that?
26
A. Yes.
27
28
378/433
Q. Can you explain a little bit about what took place in the
evaluation and what you looked at in order to form your opinion.
A. Sure, we met for three hours and ten minutes in my office and
that was after I had reviewed a number of documents which I listed
here at the beginning of my report. So, I was familiar with this case
and some of his background, which would have been contained in these
reports. And then we met for several hours. I performed a standard
forensic clinical psychiatric interview, got to know him as well as I
ms.
9
could. I asked the issues that are meeting up to this evaluation as well
as more broadly his psychiatric and substance abuse history,
10
developmental history, academic, legal history, his social history in
11
relationships, past medical history, family history. I really you did a
12
comprehensive psychiatric assessment and sat down and thought about
13
him and thought about the report and dictated this report.
14
Q. Were you able to form an opinion in this matter?
15
A. Yes, I was.
16
Q. And what was your opinion?
17
A. well I have that my opinions break down into four areas. the
18
first one really is titled violations really more just a summary of the
19
violations. The second, number two, substance abuse is my opinions
20
about his substance abuse and the foundation for that. The third area
21
for opinion is his psychiatric disorders which contribute to his
22
vulnerability to substance abuse one page 3 and 4, and again, my
23
opinions with the foundation for them. Then finally starting at page 4,
24
my treatment recommendations, starting with an assessment of what
25
he has received or is currently receiving and then my recommendations
26
for what would be appropriate treatment for him.
27
28
379/433
Q. If you could turn to the top of page 3, the report states at the
last sentence of the first paragraph, an additional test for the presence
of alcoholism, urinary ethyl glucuronide, is pending at the time this
report. Have you since received the results from that test.
A. yes, I have.
Q. And what were the results?
A. The results were negative meaning that we don't have LAP
8
ms.
9
evidence on any of these tests of recent drug or alcohol use.

Q. Does that fact that the test came back negative change any of
the opinions contained in your report?
10
A. no, it doesn't.
11
Q. is it true that you also reviewed a draft at the deposition
12
transcript of Mr. Coughlin that was taken on April 26 th, 2007 before
13
compiling the report.
14
A. I would have reviewed the documents that I had listed in my
15
beginning. Have you sent me- you may be referring to an additional
16
document which you sent me late in the game that I did not list here is
17
that what you were suggesting?
18
19
K. Yes, was there a deposition transcript that was sent to you the
morning of your evaluation?
20
A. yes. I believe so. I believe there was.
21
Q. Do you recall whether that was a deposition transcript of Mr.
22
23
Coughlin's testimony from the day before?

A. yes there were, I believe there were two depositions. Let me just
24
take a moment. It looks like that there was a deposition part 1 on
25
March 2nd which I got, and when there was a deposition part two of Mr.
26
Coughlin on April 26 which was the day before my interview which I
27
just received that day but I did review that as well.
28
380/433
Q. Did you review it?
A. I did.
Q. Did that change the opinion that you came to in your report?
A. no, it didn't.
Q. Is their anything that changes your opinion that you reached
6
7
8
ms.
9
in this case.
A. no, I currently would stand by my opinions as expressed in this
report.
A: I now request to have Exhibit 71 moved into evidence.
10
11
12
13
Q. Dr. Tucker, what is your opinion about whether Mr. Coughlin
14
suffers from past or current alcohol or other drug abuse or dependency?
15
A. On page 2 of my report under substance abuse that he does meet
16
the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and marijuana abuse. And that
17
diagnosis is not one that disappears, so it's generally considered a
18
lifelong diagnosis. you can be in remission meaning that you are not
19
currently using substances, but once you've met the criteria for that
20
condition you would be considered vulnerable to abusing those
21
substances throughout your life.
22
Q. What was your opinion that he may be in remission based on?
23
A. That is based on what he told me, which was that he's not used
24
since returning to Reno in 2003, and also, he doesn't show evidence of
25
recent substance use.
26
27
Q. the labs that you performed, approximately what time frame

are we talking about regarding use of alcohol or substances?
28
381/433
Mr. Coughlin: Excuse me, Your Honor, can I make an objection or
1
2
maybe just ask for clarification? When Dr. Tucker is referring to
something that I said or that I told him, am I able to raise a hearsay
objection at this point?

Judge McElroy: Not at this point. You can cross-examine him on
5
6
it. This is the basis, he's an expert and experts are allowed to rely on
hearsay information.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but for instance, a statement Dr. Tucker is
8
ms.
9
attributing to me, that isn't necessarily the same as if I had said yes I
had said yes, I had, in fact, said those exact words.
10
Judge McElroy: Right. you can cross-examine him on that.
11
Mr. Coughlin: That is not entered into the record as something I
12
actually said. it's just something that Dr. Tucker is saying I said?
Judge McElroy: Is basing his opinion on. Dr. Tucker says that you
13
14
15
16
17
said.
Q: So, the testing. Is there a way that you can tell how long the
testing would be able to track any alcohol or drug use?
A: yes, the testing, the urine toxicology screens would be giving us
18
information just for the previous several days, three days or so, the
19
urine ethyl glucuronide maybe out as far as a week would tell us if he
20
were consuming alcohol, and the liver function tests which I looked at,
21
might give us information of alcohol use within the previous several
22
weeks. So, I would say it doesn't go back for more than several weeks.
23
Q: So, would it be possible that somebody could be consuming
24
alcohol approximately a month before these tests were taken and it
25
wouldn't show up on the test?
26
A: Yes.
27
28
382/433
1
2
Q: Do you believe that Mr. Coughlin is rehabilitated from his

alcohol issues-
A: If I could just amplify my answer, yes and he could have been
drinking and using drugs as recently as a week prior to the interview
with these results on the test.
6
7
8
ms.
9
Q: Would you say that Mr. Coughlin is rehabilitated from the

problems that you have diagnosed him with.
A: If by rehabilitated you mean cured, I would say no. He's not
cured. I would say he is a reasonable candidate for treatment if he were
motivated to do that.
10
Q: Do you know whether or not he is currently seeking treatment?
11
A: Well, he's currently, he says, attending AA meetings,
12
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings an average in three or four times a
13
week, still experiencing rare cravings for alcohol, he says, when his
14
pain worsens, but also still not sure if he has any problems with
15
substance abuse, or if this is going to be a lifelong problem for him. He's
16
also currently taking Wellbuttrin, which is an antidepressant, he does
17
have chronic depression, which is also moderately effective for
18
attention deficit disorder, which he suffers from as well. And, he takes
19
as needed, ibuprofen for pain so that's the treatment that is currently
20
receiving. I don't believe that he is seeking additional treatment
21
beyond that at this time.
22
23
24
Q: Do you believe that Mr. Coughlin does need treatment with

respect to the alcohol and substance abuse.
A: I believe Mr. Coughlin would benefit from treatment from
25
sophisticated professional treatment for all the conditions that I
26
describe here. when you say need treatment, I don't believe that he
27
would be in any way considered, aside from some legal proceeding like
28
383/433
this, he would never be considered for involuntary treatment. He is not
a danger to himself or others on the street. I would recommend
treatment to him as a clinician and I think he would benefit from that.
I think the court or professional bodies might have some opinion about
his fitness to practice law which might lean toward a suggestion or
need for treatment but just as a clinician, I think these disorders
interfere with his life and the fact that the quality of his life and the
level of his functioning in a way that he would benefit, but ultimately
ms.
9
10
it's up to him.
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: Yes, thank you, your honor, I apologize for being late to Your
11
Honor, Dr. Tucker, and Ms. Kagan. Dr. Tucker if someone an alcoholic
12
and they drank for a week up to a test, wouldn't the tests show that
13
someone as an alcoholic would have a different physiology, perhaps in
14
terms of maybe the functioning of their pancreas or liver or something
15
in that area than someone who is not an alcoholic? Therefore stopping
16
drinking a week before a test would still show something that a non-
17
alcoholic wouldn't show on such a test?
18
A: Well, as I was saying to me, it is possible, depending on the
19
level of drinking and the particular genetic vulnerability of the liver
20
involved, because I only did liver function test, that somebody could
21
continue drinking at a moderate level up to a week before this test and
22
that would not be reflected in the liver function tests. they could
23
appear normal. but even if someone's drinking quite heavily, even if
24
they stopped a month, you know, a few weeks, a month before hand, that
25
is usually enough time for a liver to return to normal.
26
27
Q: I notice you went into in your report, not just alcohol abuse or
recovery therefrom but also into mental health issues, things of that
28
384/433
sort, and you also went into the use of marijuana. In fact, I believe in
here you also said I meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and
marijuana abuse. why did marijuana become part of your findings in
addition to being, it appears, part of your research into this?
A: well a couple reasons, in particular, one is that I was asked in
the order granting the motion to perform the medical examination in
the bar court, I was asked to I'm do a forensic clinical assessment which
focused in particular on whether to you suffered from alcohol abuse or
ms.
other drug abuse or dependency and marijuana will be another drug of
9
10
11
12
abuse. Also, you had a DUI related to marijuana. So those would be the
primary reasons.
Q: Okay, so when you say I had a DUI, can you tell me what that
means?
13
A: Yes, on January 23rd 2003 you were arrested for a DUI
14
marijuana. pled guilty to a dry reckless driving charge and you were
15
court ordered to attend twelve step meetings.
16
Q: So, when you say had a DUI, would you distinguish between
17
someone who is ultimately guilty of a DUI from someone who was
18
arrested for a DUI but did not receive a DUI?
19
20
21
A: I would say just that you were arrested for a DUI is what I'm
22
23
referring to.
Q: Okay, so based on being arrested for DUI and what else led you
24
to say that I meet the diagnostic criteria, or I don't know if you're
25
making a diagnosis here, but led you to say that I appear to meet the
26
diagnostic criteria for marijuana abuse?
27
28
385/433
A: well, in my report, I talk about your history on page three of
marijuana use. You told me that you first smoked marijuana during
college in your early twenties, smoking approximately once a month
and that this escalated after you moved to Sacramento. got to once or
twice weekly, and that was related to your chronic pain, and this
apparently led to the arrest for DUI.
7
8
ms.
9
10
Q: So all told though, just from what you're basing that on, that
could add up to less than, smoking marijuana less than 20 or 30 times,
right?
A: I actually haven't done the math.
Q: I didn't do the math, either, but I'm guessing from those brief
11
descriptions that conceivably could be, if your keeping a running total,
12
of say the number of times someone drank or something, you know.
13
That would be less than 30 times or something?
14
A: potentially, but the issue really is less the number of times
15
than whether it's maladaptive use. whether they're it leads to negative
16
consequences, that kind of thing.
17
Q: okay, so someone could be, could fit within, I don't know if I
18
should call it a diagnosis? Perhaps, if you have a term that you think is
19
fitting for what you are saying here, then, by all means, please suggest
20
it. But from what you are saying for this, someone could meet that
21
criteria if they had had say drank alcohol, say, three times in their life?
22
A: That would be extremely unusual, but if someone continued to
23
drink, and only drank three times but each time they had an escalating
24
problems and they continued to drink despite that, I'd frankly, that's a
25
bizarre hypothetical, so I don't know what to do with it. I can say I have
26
never seen many my career but I suppose that might be theoretically
27
possible.
28
386/433
1
2
3
Q: okay, so from three being bizarre to thirty being something you

based a report on, there's some sort of change there?
A: Well, but, again I don't, I don't know that, that I would accept
the number thirty. I haven't done the calculations, I'm not sure that
that's what I am referring to there.
Q: Well, you had to base it on something, right? When you were
just listing to me what you based it on, it sounds like it was a, you
know, a once a month sometimes in college something? and then during
ms.
9
the time I was living in Sacramento, which the record shows I only
lived in Sacramento a couple months, maybe a little more, you know,
10
once or twice a week? So, that could not add up to more than say, thirty,
11
really. So, you are basing a finding in your report that supports
12
marijuana abuse on information in your report that could not support a
13
finding that one had smoked marijuana, say, more than 30 times? so
14
from there, you are saying a hypothetical of having only drank three
15
times would be bizarre, but it's not that far from thirty, is it?
16
Ms. Kagan: objection, vague and ambiguous?
17
Judge McElroy: Sustained, because I think what you're confusing
18
is the marijuana with the alcohol. he didn't say alcohol three times. it
19
was marijuana. you were talking about marijuana and then all the
20
sudden you switched to alcohol, so why don't you focusing on what
21
behaviors your talking about.
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure I understand, Your Honor, why would
it matter if I was switching?
Judge McElroy: because I would assume that there's a difference
25
between drinking 30 times and being termed an alcoholic versus
26
drinking marijuana 30 times. I'm just confused as to where you're going
27
with this.
28
387/433
Mr. Coughlin: Because there is not a one for one ratio-
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna sustain the objection. Ask the question
3
4
5
again, and don't confuse the two in terms of marijuana and alcohol.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not confusing, I'm purposefully interchanging
them like that to highlight some of the-
Judge McElroy: Well, I am saying it is confusing, so let's ask.
Mr. Coughlin: I am purposefully doing that to highlight some of
the, what occurs in our society-
ms.
Judge McElroy: Well, I understand, but it is confusing and vague.
Q: Okay. Then, let's just stick with drinking. someone could drink
10
30 times, say instead of talking about marijuana here we're talking
11
about drinking and you had only the information you based your
12
marijuana abuse assessment upon and that would be say drinking
13
roughly thirty times in one's life. Could you do such a thing when
14
talking about drinking or does that only really apply when it is
15
marijuana?
16
A: Well, I don't know that I am accepting the premise of 30, now
17
that it's about mathematics. I'm actually looking at what the numbers
18
are. Your early twenties, you're born in 76, so early twenties might be
19
starting in 97 or so between 97 and 2003, I would say that's about five or
20
six years and at 12 times a year that is 60 or 70 plus the amount of times
21
you would have smoked in Sacramento. so we're up a little more than
22
that. If it was only once a month and as you said it was approximately
23
once a month, and in my experience people who abuse substances often
24
tend to underestimate the amount that they use. So when someone says
25
they smoke marijuana approximately once a month and ultimately get
26
arrested for a DUI with that, clinically I will often that may be
27
accurate, but it may also be an under estimate.
28
388/433
Q: Now, you know in a court of law there is something called an
admission against interest, such as when someone says something that
may hurt their position legally? Now, would it be fair for a judge to say,
well, that person admitted that one thing, I am going to go ahead and
multiply that by three or four because that's what I think they
probably really did? Would that be fair for a judge to do that?
7
8
ms.
9
Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation, beyond this witness's personal

knowledge.
Judge McElroy: Well, it is also irrelevant, so its sustained.
Q: do you think is appropriate for you as a physician to be
10
multiplying what someone is self reporting to you, multiplying that by
11
some sort of quotient and coming up with what you believe is accurate?
12
A: Well, I think the whole idea of mathematics is distracting
13
from the central point. So, I would not have gotten into a quantification
14
in the way that you asked me to do here.
15
Q: Okay, Dr., thanks, I am getting into that because it seemed like
16
all of the sudden we had this marijuana issue popping up. And none of
17
the exhibits or literature we have looked at before had brought that up,
18
so, at this late stage of the the game, we're coming up with a marijuana
19
diagnostic criteria for-
20
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, is there a question here, Your Honor? That

also misstates the evidence.
22
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Why don't you ask a question?
23
Q: Dr. Tucker you mentioned that I'm not currently taking any
24
25
26
medications other than Wellbuttrin, I believe?

A: What I believe you told me was that your only current
medications are Wellbutrin XL and as needed ibuprofen.
27
28
389/433
1
2
Q: And we discussed the medications that I had previously been

taking say with than the last five years?
A: Correct.
Q: And so at some point you say I started taking the other
medications?
A: the other pain medications.
Q: when you say the other you're implying something apart from
8
ms.
9
10
11
ibuprofen?
A: Correct.
Q: And do you remember when I stopped taking those pain
medications?
A: yes, it looks like the Adderall was discontinued in September
12
2006 and that you also took Clonidine for two years. I am not sure you
13
told me the exact date that that was discontinued. you also mentioned
14
that you were treated with for narcotics for your pain including Lortab
15
and Oxycontin-
16
Q: That is not at the same time, correct?
17
A: Right, I think you told me you switched from Lortab to
18
19
Oxycontin because of the acetaminophen issue there.

Q: I didn't mean to interrupt you. You were going into my
20
cessation of taking prescription narcotics. Do you recall a day for that
21
around the same time that Adderall was discontinued in or around
22
October or September of 2006?
23
A: I believe so. I don't see that right here in my report, but you
24
told me about issues with your father and the California LAP. You
25
decided the risks and problems associated with narcotic treatment were
26
that you would just continue with ibuprofen.
27
28
390/433
Q: When I cited the problems, do you recall having a discussion
1
2
about some of the bias and prejudice I felt I faced from various
individuals for taking these medications?
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule the objection.
A: Yes.
Q: and, where some of those individuals with the LAP program?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall discussions concerning the LAP program that
ms.
9
spoke to my dissatisfaction with having a radiologist MD within the
10
LAP program giving his very strong opinion on my psychiatric
11
treatment as well as my pain management routine?
12
13
14
A: Yes.
15
Q: Do you believe a radiologist has the appropriate background
16
and training to function as both a psychiatrist and pain management
17
specialist?
18
19
20
A: No.
21
Q: What does a radiologist do?
22
A: The generally interpret imaging studies. Most commonly x-
23
24
25
26
27
rays.
Q: Is there an x-ray that can tell you whether or not you have
chronic pain, or ADD, or alcoholism?
A: No, per se, but they can be important supporting information
for a diagnosis.
28
391/433
Q: Do you recall a discussion about the radiologist's statements to
1
2
me during my meeting with LAP, wherein the radiologist, in concert
with Dr. Otterness, the psychologist who was there that day and others
attending that, that they told me verbatim that we don't feel you are
sober because of these medications you are taking?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and hearsay.
Mr. Coughlin: It is not for the truth of the matter asserted, its just
8
ms.
9
toJudge McElroy: For his opinion, in terms of an overall diagnosis

of what your issues are. I am going to overrule it.
10
A: You are asking me if I remember you telling me about that?
11
Q: Telling me that you are not sober because you are taking these
12
medications, which are being prescribed to you?
13
A: I remember you telling me that.
14
Q: Do you have any concern with the fact that the LAP program is
15
making such bright line statements related to one's medical care and
16
prescription medications?
17
18
Judge McElroy: Okay, I guess the first question is, does he know
19
anything about the LAP program. So, I am going to sustain the
20
objection in terms of no foundation. You need to establish a foundation
21
as to what he knows about the LAP program?
22
Q: Dr. Tucker, are you familiar with the Bar's LAP program?
23
A: I would say I have some relatively superficial familiarity with
24
the program.
25
Q: Do you have any involvement with the program?
26
A: Not directly.
27
Q: Indirectly?
28
392/433
A: In the past, I have evaluated people who were in the LAP
program, or were being considered for the program, or who had been in
the LAP program. I evaluated them for legal proceedings, often
initiated by the Bar. And I want to say it was the Character and
Fitness program, but it could have been other departments within the
California Bar.
Q: Would those proceedings include trials such as this one?
A: I don't believe I have been in trials such as this one with the
ms.
9
10
Bar.
Mr. Coughlin: And, so, Your Honor, would you say that is
sufficient to-
11
Judge McElroy: What is your next question?
12
Mr. Coughlin: Well, to go back to the question that precipitated-
13
Judge McElroy: I don't even know what question you are referring
14
to. Just ask a Question.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Okay-
16
Judge McElroy: Without.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Assuming there is now enough foundation as to
18
your knowledge of the LAP program, would you say it is problematic
19
for, say, the radiologist to be telling someone that they are not sober
20
because of their use of medications that are being prescribed by a pain
21
management professional or specialist. Do you see that as problematic?
22
23
24
A: I think that is potentially problematic.
25
Q: Why?
26
A: It may not be within the expertise of the radiologist as you are
27
suggesting.
28
393/433
Q: Also, management of complicated multiple diagnosis patients
who have both pain, or who have pain, mood disturbance such as
depression, ADD, character issues, substance abuse, that is quite
complex and, as you are suggesting, if it was a blanket rule or blanket
opinion that narcotics should never be used with chronic pain patients
if they have a history of addictions, or that stimulants should not be
used to treat Attention Deficit Disorder if someone has a history of
addiction, I think that would be an unsophisticated and clinically
ms.
inappropriate approach.
Q: Thank you, Dr. Tucker. Is some of the fallout of someone going
10
with this approach include jeopardizing one's medical care and health?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and speculation.
12
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection at this point.
13
Q: Could some of the fallout of this type of approach include one
14
not being one not having a great relationship with the LAP program.
15
Ms. Kagan: Same objection, Your Honor.
16
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection.
17
Q: So you are familiar that I have had some problem with the
18
LAP program?
19
A: You mentioned that you were terminated for non-compliance.
20
Q: Can you see where the approach characterized by our discussion
21
about the radiologist, can you see where that would affect one's
22
participation in the LAP program?
23
24
25
A: Yes, I can see how that would affect your feelings towards the
26
LAP program.
27
28
394/433
Q: Would this be especially true if one's health care and health
1
2
had been jeopardized by the LAP program's approach.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lacks foundation, speculation.
Q: Can you see that it is very possible that this type of situation
that is described, an applicant to the Bar being monitored for alcohol
abuse, who has later had a radiologist make disparaging statements
concerning the treatment being provided by another health care
ms.
9
10
provider, one who happens to be a specialist in the area for which the
treatment is sought, could you see where that could lead to the
applicant's health being compromised?
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: I wish to show the relevance for this-
14
Judge McElroy: You need to call the LAP people as your witnesses
15
and cross-examine them or put them on direct.

Mr. Coughlin: But they are not experts in the way that Dr. Tucker
16
17
18
is.
Judge McElroy: They are experts in the issue of whether you have
19
been terminated from LAP and that is an issue here, but Dr. Tucker
20
doesn't know, other than the fact that you have been terminated.
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: So it is whether or not, or is it why I was

terminated?
23
Judge McElroy: Why? Whether?
24
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so is this going to why?
25
Judge McElroy: Don't argue with me. Ask the next question.
26
Q: So, your opinion, Dr. Tucker seems to be that I would benefit
27
from resuming my previous pain management and ADD treatments?
28
395/433
A: I think that there is a good possibility that you would benefit
from that, but you would really need to be evaluated by a pain
specialist for the necessity and appropriateness of narcotic treatment,
which you told me had been more effective in the past than ibuprofen,
and more detailed would be elicited and a treatment plan would be
developed for you regarding the attention deficit disorder, character
character issues, mood disturbance, which included consideration of
stimulants, such as Adderall, which you told me had benefited you in
ms.
9
the past.
Q: Your Honor, I am just having a little bit of a problem
10
understanding why Dr. Tucker is here today. Perhaps, if I knew why
11
he was here I could direct my questions better to what they are
12
supposed to be directed to.
13
Judge McElroy: Okay. He conducted an examination of you to
14
determine whether you currently suffer from alcohol abuse and or
15
other drug abuse dependencies and your treatment and also he is here
16
to make, to address the issue of whether you have been rehabilitated
17
such that you can become a member of the State Bar of California.
18
Q: Thank you Your Honor. What is your opinion on that Dr.
19
Tucker with respect to whether I had been rehabilitated such that I
20
could become a member of the State Bar of California.
21
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: Because I recall you speaking to that somewhat
24
earlier but it would be helpful if I could get a clearer-
25
A: Well, it is interesting because I didn't understand that one of
26
my purposes was to make an actual determination about whether you
27
were fit to practice law in California-
28
396/433
Judge McElroy: And that is true, that wasn't your reason you
were hired, uh, employed by the State Bar. Its really to address the
issues of abuse and alcohol, but he has, in fact, opened it up, and what
this court has to consider is whether he has rebutted the State Bar's, uh,
whether the State Bar has rebutted his case that he is rehabilitated and
presently fit to practice law.
A: Okay, if you could restate your question then.
Q: Judge McElroy was just highlighting to me the reasons for you
ms.
being here today, and chief among them was, as I understood it, was to
assess whether I have been or can be rehabilitated such that I could or
10
should be admitted to the State Bar of California. So, if that is one of
11
the big reasons for you being here today, then I would be interested in
12
getting an answer from you to that question.
13
A: Well. My opinion in that regard would be that if you were felt
14
by the court to be appropriate for admission to the state to practice law,
15
I would feel that it is very important, I would not say that you are
16
fully rehabilitated at this point, and I would feel that it is very
17
important for you to have the kind of treatment that I described, and
18
the kind of monitoring that I described. I feel that all of these
19
problems, and I have listed five domains, it is the mood or depression,
20
the attention deficit disorder, the chronic pain, the character issues,
21
passive aggressive and oppositional defiant traits, as well as the
22
substance abuse. I think that all of these are still clinically significant
23
to an extent that they would impair your ability to practice law.
24
Whether they are so severe that you should be prohibited from
25
practicing law? I have to admit that I have not sat down and addressed
26
that, that would be something I would want to spend a little more time
27
on and confer with one of the attorneys here as to what are the actual
28
397/433
criteria for fitness so I could have some standards to measure this
against. But, just clinically speaking, I would say that you are not
fully rehabilitated. I think that you have a number of symptoms and
issues outstanding which are leading to substantial impairment in
your functioning and that you would benefit from that treatment and I
also think that those would interfere with your ability to practice law.
Q: Okay, now, you are compensated by the State Bar for your
8
ms.
9
report and testimony?

A: Yes.
Q: Could you tell me how much you are?
10
A: Its, uh, hhhhhhhhm.
11
12
13
Q: Dr. Tucker, in your review for this, for your testimony and for
14
your report, did you see the packet of AA signature sheets I had
15
submitted that is included in, I believe, Exhibit 3, pages 8 and on, no 12
16
and on?
17
A: As you described it. All that I reviewed for this report would
18
be the documents listed here. With the addition of, I think, the
19
transcript I was given the day we met, which was your second, part two
20
of your deposition her in California.
21
22
Q: And, Dr., were you familiar with the judge's order directed to
what you were to review in preparation for your work on this matter?
23
A: That Order is item number 7 on the top of page 2.
24
Q: Did we discuss that Order when we met?
25
A: Yes.
26
Q: And, had you read it before then?
27
A: Yes.
28
398/433
1
2
3
Q: And you had a good idea of the acceptable subject matter the
court had spelled out?
A: I think that when we met you were very concerned about the
actual specific language in the court order such that we needed to
actually get a copy of it and look at what was authorized. So, in terms of
the specific verbiage, we did need to get a copy of the report, but
generally speaking I had seen it and I understood what I was being
asked to do.
ms.
9
Q: But, in fact, when we did review it, there was some things in it
that surprised you?
10
A: Is that a question?
11
Q: Yeah. I am asking you to confirm if that is true.
12
A: I don't recall that.
13
Q: Do you recall being surprised that the court's order call for you
14
15
to submit a copy of your report to the applicant?

A: We might have discussed that. I actually don't have a specific
16
recollection of that, but I know that as part of my consent form I
17
indicate that I will not give a copy of the report to the applicant or
18
evaluee, and that the court order said, may have, may have contradicted
19
that, in which case I would have said, we will do whatever the court
20
order said. But, I don't remember the specific discussion about that.
21
Q: Can you turn to page 11 of Exhibit 3?
22
Ms. Kagan: There is no witness binder.
23
Judge McElroy: We need to get a witness binder.
24
Ms. Kagan: I have Exhibit 3 though. Let the record reflect I am
25
26
handing Dr. Tucker Exhibit 3.

Q: If you can just look at page 11 and on, glancing over them-
27
28
399/433
1
2
Judge McElroy: And what the record should reflect is that these
are your attendance at AA meetings?
Mr. Coughlin: Yes. These are part of the materials.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so we have that, page 11 through 33 would
be your attendance at AA meetings. The question is, would that change
his opinion?
7
8
ms.
9
Q: Well, was this factored into your opinion on the state of my

recovery?
A: Yes, you had told me you were regularly attending AA
meetings, and I think you told me you had done 180 AA meetings in 180
10
days, if I am not mistaken, but that was my recollection. I didn't put
11
that in the report. But, at least that was a requirement. But, I
12
understood from you that you had been to many AA meetings and had
13
regularly attended and continued to attend regularly. Or irregularly.
14
Q: Okay, now does someone who has gone to the trouble to gather
15
these lists, is that different from someone who has done these things or
16
just said they had done these things?
17
A: Well, then there is some documentation to support it.
18
Q: Okay, so would that affect your opinion? Would your opinion
19
be different if we had all the same other facts, but for the fact that one
20
guy got some 30 signatures pages dating back to 2003, and the other guy
21
just said yeah I went to a bunch of meetings? Does that enter into the
22
calculus that your report covers?
23
A: I think it is important and it does support your statement, but,
24
actually, I was not doubting you about that. I think I was giving you
25
the benefit of the doubt.
26
27
28
400/433
Q: You mentioned. From what I gathered from your answer to my
earlier question, it seemed as though you said you don't feel that I am
recovered yet, or fully recovered?
A: Correct.
Q: Do you feel that one needs to be fully recovered to be an
appropriate person to be admitted to the Bar.
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: So, its that Dr. Tucker's opinion is not relevant?
Judge McElroy: No, I don't.
Mr. Coughlin: On that matter? I am just trying to understand
because we have him here?
Judge McElroy: I don't think that Dr. Tucker knows what it takes
to be a member of the bar.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I wouldn't expect him too, either, but it seems
like that is kind of what he is here for todayJudge McElroy: No, he is here to give the court some indication of
whether you currently suffer from alcohol abuse issues.
18
Q: Okay, Dr. Tucker, do you feel that I currently suffer from
19
alcohol abuse issues such that- I don't know how I can phrase this
20
question? Such that I can be admitted to the Bar? Such that you would
21
have reservations giving whatever sort of input to the Bar that you are
22
able to, or that would be appropriate, such that would feel comfortable
23
in giving that input?
24
Ms. Kagan: Objection, ambiguous and relevance.
25
Judge McElroy: I am overruling it. If you can understand what
26
he is asking.
27
28
401/433
A: I did, and then I got distracted, but I think that I can respond.
I think that your diagnosis of alcohol and marijuana abuse, whether or
not you are currently or recently using, renders you vulnerable to the
use of those substances-
Mr. Coughlin: Sorry to interrupt you there, Dr. Tucker, but the
judge had said alcohol abuse, and now you are saying alcohol and
marijuana abuse-
8
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Marijuana is also included, you were arrested for

a DUI and you pled to a dry reckless, so that is an issue here.
Mr. Coughlin: I just get confused, Your Honor, because I have
10
pieces of paper from this Court, or the Bar, or the LAP program saying
11
the issue is alcohol abuse and then at other times the issue becomes
12
alcohol abuse and pain meds-
13
Judge McElroy: Its substance abuse.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but at first it said alcohol abuse-
15
Judge McElroy: Its substance abuse. Proceed.
16
A: I think that diagnosis renders you vulnerable to use of those
17
substances. And then, also, on page 3, I list the other psychiatric
18
disorders that contribute to your vulnerability to abuse of those
19
substances.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Is that included your honor with alcohol abuse?
21
Judge McElroy: At this point it is, its an issue.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Is there anything that is not included with alcohol
23
24
abuse?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, this is a moral character case. And
25
you have indicated that you have good moral character. The State Bar
26
has a right to introduce evidence that you do not have good moral
27
character. And, part of your moral character in terms of practicing is
28
402/433
an issue of substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, anything that would
prevent you in terms of practicing law. We have to look at the whole
picture here.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, can you see where it is problematic to
4
5
me that under the auspices of looking at recovery from alcohol abuse,
we have made the issue anything? Because, I agreed to certain things
with the LAP program or with this Bar that were related to monitoring
recovery from alcohol abuseJudge McElroy: Well, if you had complied with the program, we
ms.
9
wouldn't even be here, okay?
10
Mr. Coughlin: I can not say that I agree with that.
11
Judge McElroy: So, and you have already opened up the issue.
12
Mr. Coughlin: If you are asking me if I agree with that, the
13
answer is emphatically no, I don't agree with your assessment of that.
14
Judge McElroy: Obviously, you don't.
15
Mr. Coughlin: No, I don't. But, one of the two of us has actually
16
gone through it.

Judge McElroy: Okay, but that is why you are here. And you
17
18
could have presented evidence in regard to that, and you haven't.
19
Mr. Coughlin: In regard to what?
20
Judge McElroy: To LAP. To why you didn't complete LAP. You
21
could have put that on as your case.

Mr. Coughlin: I don't even know what- Have we even discussed
22
23
what I supposedly didn't complete in LAP? Have we ever enunciated
24
that?
25
Judge McElroy: At this point the court can not advise you. What
26
you needed to do in this case was get an attorney to present your case.
27
You didn't do that, you are representing yourself. And, I am supposed
28
403/433
to be a neutral judge in terms of what is going on and you are not
allowing me to do that because you don't have an attorney and you don't
know how to put on a case.
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: So, I am able to allow you to do things and allow

you not to do things?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, ask the next question, okay?
Q: Dr. Tucker, from what you know about this case, do you see
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
anywhere where you feel that the LAP's approach was problematic?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't understand what I can ask Dr. Tucker that
is relevant?
Judge McElroy: Well, first of all, it has been asked and answered
13
and I have a sense of what Dr. Tucker knows about the LAP program. I
14
don't think we are going to get anywhere here because he doesn't know
15
exactly what went on between you and LAP other than your self-
16
reported.
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: So, no more LAP? We are not going to talk about
LAP with Dr. Tucker?
19
Judge McElroy: Right, you need to get the LAP people in here.
20
Mr. Coughlin: So what can we talk about with Dr. Tucker then?
21
Judge McElroy: His report.
22
Mr. Coughlin: For the purpose of?
23
Judge McElroy: For the purpose of establishing his report is
24
25
26
27
something that you don't accept.

Mr. Coughlin: But what is his report establishing? I know what it
is saying, but what is it good for?
Judge McElroy: Treatment recommendations.
28
404/433
1
2
3
Mr. Coughlin: But how does that affect what we are looking at
here today? We are looking atJudge McElroy: Well, maybe you don't need to cross-examine him
anymore, maybe enough has been accomplished that you are not going
to accomplish much more through cross-examination.
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: All right, then no more questions, Your Honor.

Thank you, Dr. Tucker.
Judge McElroy: Thank you. You may step down.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, can we take a two minute recess?
Judge McElroy: Okay, we are back on the record, and does this
State Bar have any more evidence to present?
Ms. Kagan: No, before the State Bar rests though it would like to
13
withdraw the following exhibit. All of Exhibit 73 which includes
14
exhibit 73A through N.
15
16
Judge McElroy: Okay, all of Exhibit 73 is withdrawn. So, 73

through 73N are withdrawn. 74 is admitted.
17
Court Personnel: 74? i don't have that in yet.
18
Judge McElroy: okay are you asking about 74 or what?
19
Ms. Kagan: actually I thought I had that admitted, 74.
20
Judge McElroy: I thought it was admitted but I could be wrong it
21
22
23
will be admitted now. 71 was admitted today and 71A.

Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, when we admit 74 that means we're
admitting all this LAP stuff?
24
Judge McElroy: no.74 is just the your status as a patent agent.
25
Mr. Coughlin: ok I'm sorry.
26
Judge McElroy: so why don't we go over all the exhibits. They're a
27
bunch of exhibits.
28
405/433
Court Personnel: I have other exhibits that are not admitted.
Judge McElroy: exactly. why don't, let me, i have 13 was that
3
4
withdrawn?
Ms. Kagan: I believe there was a question that I did quote into the
record, but I believe there was an objection.
Judge McElroy: ok so it's withdrawn?
Ms. Kagan: yeah just one moment.
Judge McElroy: sure.
ms.
9
10
11
Ms. Kagan: i would request to have page 37, lines 11 through 21

moved into evidence.
Judge McElroy: Okay page 37 lines 11 to 21 that will be admitted.
what about 14 exhibit 14 that's withdrawn?
12
Ms. Kagan: Withdrawn.
13
Judge McElroy: exhibit 16 is that withdrawn?
14
Ms. Kagan: yes.
15
Judge McElroy:Exhibit 18?
16
Ms. Kagan: withdrawn.
17
Judge McElroy: exhibit 22?
18
19
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 23?
20
21
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 26?
22
23
Judge McElroy: exhibit 27.
24
25
26
27
28
406/433
Judge McElroy: exhibit 33?
ms.
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I would like to keep exhibit 52 in if
24
possible?
25
Judge McElroy: you're going to have to introduce it ok right now
26
she's withdrawn it. if you want it in your going to have to introduce it
27
yourself through your testimony. Exhibit 56?
28
407/433
Judge McElroy: 64?
Ms. Kagan: I believe that was admitted. That was the testimony
on last Thursday with Bill Stevens and Lynn Thingvold. I thought I
moved it into evidence and there is no objection.
6
7
8
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Let me just look at it. exhibit 64 is admitted and

that covers it. so is there any other evidence?
Ms. Kagan: your honor the State Bar rests.
Judge McElroy: ok and Mr. Coughlin do you have any more
evidence?
10
Mr. Coughlin: well, could I introduce exhibit 52?
11
Judge McElroy: you can call yourself as a witness to rebut their
12
13
14
15
16
case. Ill leave it up to you.

Mr. Coughlin: can I ask, the exhibit with the letters of
recommendation, is that something you can consider or be admitted?
Judge McElroy: Let me know what exhibit it is. And what is the
one that you wanted to admit?
17
Mr. Coughlin: 52.
18
Judge McElroy: Let me see 52, maybe there's no objection?
19
Ms. Kagan: My objection is based on relevance, your honor, if he
20
21
22
can lay a foundation for?

Judge McElroy: ok so there is an objection. so you're going to have
to put on testimony if you want it in.
23
Mr. Coughlin: And are we calling LAP people today?
24
Judge McElroy: No. you- that's not part of her case.
25
Mr. Coughlin: ok because you did say you were going to call Ms.
26
Poley at some point in the first three days of the trial.
27
28
408/433
1
2
Ms. Kagan: I don't know exactly what I said. what I did say was
that Ms. Poley, she may be a witness in this matter if necessary.
Mr. Coughlin: but you're not calling her?
Ms. Kagan: no, I'm not.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, Exhibits 39 and 40 contain the letters
of recommendation. On 39 it would be page 16.
Judge McElroy: I believe there was a hearsay objection?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Judge McElroy: I don't know how you get that in without calling
that person.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so your honor if they're not being offered to
prove the truth of the matters asserted within the letters?
Judge McElroy: you just need to call them as a witness. it's
hearsay she's entitled to cross-examine them.
Mr. Coughlin: but we introduced those photographs into evidence
and I wasn't-
16
Judge McElroy: No, they were-
17
Mr. Coughlin: but they were they were paraded before the court
18
19
20
though right?
Judge McElroy: and i totally ignored them. They are not into
evidence.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Can you read these and then totally ignore them?
22
Judge McElroy: well then what would be the point?
23
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know, what was the point of showing the
24
photographs to the court? I would at least like whatever chance she had
25
by showing those to the court to have you read these and try to ignore
26
them as much.
27
28
409/433
1
2
Judge McElroy: I have ignored them. I mean, I have read them.

I've ignored them.
Mr. Coughlin: You read these?
Judge McElroy: yes.
Mr. Coughlin: you read all of these letters of rec? There is like
seven of them.
Judge McElroy: I have read every exhibit that is here.
Mr. Coughlin: For instance, on exhibit 40 page 35 that is a former
ms.
9
state senator in Nevada whose work with the State Bar of Nevada for
20 years he's on their board and he-
10
Judge McElroy: That's true but you need to present them.
11
Mr. Coughlin: but you read them, right?
12
Judge McElroy: In order to be introduced as evidence.
13
Mr. Coughlin: but you've read these letters?
14
Judge McElroy: I've read the letters but I they cannot come into
15
my consideration in terms of the decision in this case. only evidence
16
that's been admitted.
17
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: ok Your Honor can I ask you to what extent is this
suggestion that I somehow didn't do what LAP told me to doJudge McElroy: You need to call them. you may have a reason for
20
not doing what LAP wanted you to do but you have to call them in as
21
witnesses.
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: okay and I'm not even saying I didn't do what what
they wanted me to do and i have not seenJudge McElroy: You were terminated from LAP, okay. that's the,
25
that is the only thing the court knows at this point is you were
26
terminated from LAP. and that's why the Committee could not make a
27
recommendation to the Supreme Court of California that you be
28
410/433
admitted to the Supreme Court of California, that you not be admitted
as an attorney in the State of California. that's the only information i
have.
Mr. Coughlin: it all comes down to what LAP says?
Judge McElroy: no it comes down to what the Committee has said
about your failure to cooperate with LAP. that was a condition of you
being admitted.
8
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: and all they said so far was thatJudge McElroy: you were terminated.
Mr. Coughlin: I was terminated?
10
Judge McElroy: you were terminated.
11
Mr. Coughlin: So, we don't know what that could be for?
12
Judge McElroy: Only the evidence that was introduced at the
13
trial is what I'm takin' into consideration. One, that you were
14
terminated. you did not-
15
Mr. Coughlin: And that's it? We don't know why we, don't know if
16
it's because I looked at them the wrong way or if I failed twenty drug
17
tests or what?
18
19
Judge McElroy: That is something you can argue. you can put it,
you can argue.
20
Mr. Coughlin: but we're not they're not showing anything to
21
support that, so at this point what's that worth? To the determination?
22
Judge McElroy: it's something that goes into consideration.
23
Mr. Coughlin: but if we have no idea why I was terminated?
24
Judge McElroy: you were terminated from LAP, a violation of the
25
26
27
agreement you had or the stipulation you had with the Committee.
Mr. Coughlin: Shouldn't part of the burden be that they have to
show why I was terminated?
28
411/433
Judge McElroy: No, it's your burden you-
Mr. Coughlin: But at this point they are rebutting my original
3
4
case, so it's their burden isn't it?

Judge McElroy: No. it's a moral character case. you have the
burden of presenting that you have good moral character. they rebut
that. They rebutted it, and now you if you have witnesses can rebut
their rebuttal.
8
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: is there anything I need to rebut? Because, did they

prove anything about the LAP termination?
Judge McElroy: that is something you as an attorney have to
10
decide. as a person representing yourself is have you made your case,
11
have they made their case.
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I guess I am saying, if I have then I don't

want to waste your time by furtherJudge McElroy: but that's something you have to do. which is one
of the reasons why you should have had an attorney.
16
Mr. Coughlin: i am an attorney.
17
Judge McElroy: ok, but you know what they say when you
18
19
20
21
22
23
represent yourself.
Mr. Coughlin: well I don't know if the person who came up with
that saying ever got to be a part of thisJudge McElroy: Believe me, in my practice I've seen it and I agree,
so you need to determine whether you've completed your case or not.
Mr. Coughlin: and i did have an attorney as a matter of fact, you
24
know? The State Bar's dragging this procedure out in concert with the
25
LAP program has made it so that I don't have an attorney anymore, but
26
I did have an attorney originally.
27
28
412/433
1
2
3
4
Judge McElroy: okay well you don't now, so let's make a decision.
what do you want to do.
Mr. Coughlin: I wish to put on testimony related to why I was
terminated from the LAP program.
Judge McElroy: that's fine and you can put yourself on.
Mr. Coughlin: ok and part of that would be exhibit 52. so should i
7
8
ms.
9
10
deal with that now orJudge McElroy: You can deal with it if that's how you want to
deal with it. but we need to put yourself on as a witness. that's fine. you
understand that you're still under oath.
Mr. Coughlin: yes. i would like to testify with regard to a few
11
things. first thing I'd like to address is my supposed termination from
12
the LAP program. At this point, I don't know why I was terminated
13
from the LAP program. I was never given any anything telling me
14
why, other than any one sentence that was pretty vague, something
15
like you haven't fulfilled the terms of your participation plan. you're
16
terminated. something like that. so I don't really know exactly why I
17
was terminated and if that's a big part of the decision you'll make in
18
this i would suggest it needs more light to be shed on it. if it doesn't
19
factor much into your decision at all, then fine, I don't need to spend a
20
lot of time on it.
21
I don't know quite why I was terminated by LAP. after such an
22
expansive and invasive entity has poked around in your life you might
23
you might wish to get some feedback as to why they chose to terminate
24
you after looking into every corner of your medical records, psychiatric
25
profile, asked you questions about your economic life, asked you
26
questions about your sex life, which I will note, your honor, in one of
27
our earlier telephone conversations you mentioned that as being
28
413/433
something that LAP program would not be able to do, whereupon
informed you that in fact their own questionnaire which is include it as
an exhibit in here does go into one's sex life.
But, Id like to introduce exhibit 52 for the purpose of showing
that for whatever reason I was terminated from LAP I'm not sure but if
LAP means to suggest that i didn't fulfill the terms of participation
plan as it relates to getting some sort of test done i would submit
exhibit 52 to say that I made myself available to take any test the LAP
ms.
asked me to take and it was a failure on LAP's part to follow up with
regard to whatever part of the participation planned they feel that I
10
didn't fulfill and give me an opportunity to fulfill it. this exhibit 52 is
11
not everything related to on the issue of my trying to fulfill the terms
12
of the participation plan. I have other emails. i have had phone
13
conversations and letters with Ms. Poley that indicate that if there's a
14
test I need to take i would appreciate her letting me know when and
15
where-
16
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: No, well okay exhibit 52, at least speaks to that
19
issue though, Your Honor. I'll note on the second paragraph, its my
20
attorney at the time Mr. Fishkin is expressing to Ms. Poley that it's his
21
understanding that she wants me to take some sort of test. it
22
demonstrates that I don't know what test she's talking about or where
23
to get such a test done. And Ms. Poley- and I'll note the late date. this is
24
February 6th, of 2006. This-
25
26
Ms. Kagan: your honor, objection. referring to hearsay evidence

it's not even in evidence.
27
28
414/433
Judge McElroy: okay in terms of exhibit 52, i will say that it's not
hearsay, if it's not coming in for the truth of the matter, and it's
corroborative evidence that you might want to know what a test, what
test they want you take.
Mr. Coughlin: so it is in evidence?
Judge McElroy: I'll let it in not for the truth of the matter but as
some corroborative evidence that there was a test they wanted to take.
Mr. Coughlin: And further, in that line, your honor, I would
ms.
assert that this letter is dated February 6 th, 2006. This abeyance period
ended i believe in February or this abeyance period, i believe started in
10
August of 06? That was the date of my original meeting with the LAP
11
program? So, August-September October November December January
12
February? so if Mr. Fishkin is having correspondences with Ms. Poley
13
in February of 06 about taking some test, then that would suggest and
14
and I would corroborate this with my own statements, that Ms. Polly
15
never even made any effort to get a test taken until nearly the end of
16
this six month abeyance period.
17
18
Judge McElroy: What I would do is direct your attention to

Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin to focus your direct examination.
19
Mr. Coughlin: that one page in exhibit 6?
20
Judge McElroy: Yes.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
22
Judge McElroy: as you indicated you were confused as to why you
23
24
were terminated from LAP.

Mr. Coughlin: to read from Exhibit 6: the LAP Evaluation
25
Committee has determined that you have not successfully complied
26
with their recommendations and appeared not to have gained insight
27
28
415/433
regarding your alcohol abuse. in addition, your participation in LAP
has been terminated. So?

Judge McElroy: so, what you need to do is address your issue, the
3
4
direct issue that you said you were going to be giving direct
examination about, your termination from LAP.

Mr. Coughlin: And that's what Im saying. i don't know why i was
6
7
terminated from LAP. i don't know that you could figure that out just
from this letter alone. and I believe this letter alone is all I got myself
ms.
9
after three years of dealing with the LAP program and spending a lot
of money to jump through different hoops that they required and
10
having my medical care criticized severely in the face of me providing
11
them with like 30 pages of AA sheets. Having a radiologist and a
12
psychologist question the care provided-
13
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, that's the basis. Im going to overrule the
15
objection. that's the basis for your termination from LAP. that's what
16
you're saying.
17
Mr. Coughlin: is what?
18
Judge McElroy: That you didn't like the report from a radiologist.
19
Mr. Coughlin: No, what I like and what I don't like I don't think
20
decides whether I am terminated.

Judge McElroy: Im just suggesting that you focus in on what you
21
22
said you were putting yourself on the stand for it in terms of direct
23
examination, your termination from LAP.

Mr. Coughlin: right, and Im saying i don't know why i was
24
25
terminated from LAP.

Judge McElroy: Okay, so, what's the next evidence you want to go
26
27
on-
28
416/433
Mr. Coughlin: So, I'm asking you to take a look at exhibit 6 and-
Judge McElroy: it's in evidence I looked at it.
Mr. Coughlin: and from exhibit 6, I still don't know why I was
terminated from LAP.
Judge McElroy: okay.
Mr. Coughlin: i will say that i don't believe i received anything
beyond exhibit 6 to tell me why I was terminated from LAP and so it's
kind of hard to address why I was terminated from LAP, you know I
ms.
9
mean?
Judge McElroy: yes.
10
Mr. Coughlin: because I haven't been told why. And then I'm
11
pointing to this exhibit 52 to show that the even if LAP wants to say it
12
was over some testing that they wanted done, we made efforts to, we
13
have written evidence here you know showing the we made efforts to
14
comply with them. i don't see any evidence from them pointing to the
15
contrary, so.
16
Judge McElroy: okay, so let's move on. Exhibit 52 was admitted.
17
Mr. Coughlin: I will state that at my meeting with LAP in
18
August they did in fact in concert say to me-
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: They did say to me that you're not sober because
22
you're taking these medications. i can tell you that can throw, can be
23
bad for your health.
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: Okay, so this is not going in for the truth of the
matter stated. this is going into show your state of mind. that's it.
Mr. Coughlin: okay, well, so it can't be going in to say I heard
them say this?
28
417/433
Judge McElroy: No, it's, I mean at this point it's self-serving,
number one, which is why it's part of the reason that it's hearsay is it's
not reliable testimony. But, I'm letting it in to show your state of mind.
this is what you believe, not for the truth.
Mr. Coughlin: so, anything that is self serving is unreliable?
Judge McElroy: No. all I'm saying is that hearsay, it is hearsay,
but it's not hearsay if it's not going in for the truth of the matter and
it's going into just show your state of mind.
ms.
Mr. Coughlin: okay, I would like it in for the truth of the matter.
Judge McElroy: Well its not because its hearsay. If it were going
10
in for the truth of the matter, it would be hearsay and it's not reliable.
11
that's why hearsay evidence is not allowed into evidence is because it's
12
not reliable.
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: But if someone is testifying that yeah this guy told
me he killed that person they are able to-
15
Judge McElroy: Its not reliable.
16
Mr. Coughlin: they wouldn't be able to testify about that?
17
Judge McElroy: i can't give you and evidence-
18
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, this killer admitted this killing to me?
19
Judge McElroy: I'm am not giving an evidence lecture-
20
Mr. Coughlin: but I know that if a guy-
21
Judge McElroy: I've made my ruling, okay, I'm letting it in to
22
23
24
show your state of mind.

Mr. Coughlin: and I'm just trying to deduce whether your saying
it is unreliable because of me, something in particular to me?
25
Judge McElroy: Its totally, its unreliable. Its unreliable.
26
Mr. Coughlin: because I'm saying it? Or would it be unreliable
27
because anybody is saying it?
28
418/433
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: It would be unreliable for anybody to say it who

wasn't the declarant at the time.
Mr. Coughlin: All right. I'm just trying to figure out how you
would ever get a statement against interest into evidence, then.
Judge McElroy: well this isn't a statement against interest, as i
said it's self-serving.
Mr. Coughlin: it's LAP statement against their own interests
because they're practicing medicineJudge McElroy: I am not going to argue Mr. Coughlin. let's move
on. That's exhibit 52, its in, but not for the truth. Next question.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I think that the truth should be heard and
11
the truth about that is that they're jeopardizing people's health care by
12
being so brash and blunt with their approach.
13
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna let it in as that's what you thought.
14
Mr. Coughlin: thank you. and I'll take this opportunity at this
15
trial to say that my experiences with the LAP in that regard were very
16
bad for my well my physical health and my medical treatment was
17
compromised a great deal by LAP's approach. and I believe that
18
approach is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license, and
19
that as you earlier suggested, if I had just done what they said,
20
everything would have been all fine, is something like I cannot agree
21
with. Because you've got people who five minutes after meeting you are
22
going to practice outside their specialty and outside their profession in
23
fact in telling you what is acceptable medical care and what is not and
24
the consequences of that are that they're not going to give you a
25
favorable recommendation to work in a field that you've gone to school
26
for that you've taken out maximums of student loans for, that you
27
passed the bar exam for, you took the bar exam to why for, you know? so
28
419/433
the the LAP program has a pretty heavy hammer that it wields and I
wish to illustrate that in this setting and hopefully get that into an
opinion because I'd like that to be known. I think that power that is
unchecked leads to bad things. and right now as I see it the LAP has
unchecked power and that's real serious when you're talking about
people's medical care when you're talking about complicated,
complicated situations. As I think Dr. Tucker's report shows fairly well,
these are complicated interactions between different medical problems.
ms.
if you can divorce it from some of the prejudice and some of the politics
that go along with things like substance abuse or chronic pain or ADD,
10
and look at it like something like a hemophiliac or diabetic or
11
something like that and if you had a diabetic or someone like that come
12
into the LAP and for them say we don't think you're sober because
13
you're taking insulin, so stop taking that insulin the results of that
14
could be pretty bad.
15
16
Judge McElroy: Im going to let it in.
17
Mr. Coughlin: that kind of brings me to another point, which is
18
that i can't think of another disease, and the AMA does characterized
19
both alcoholism and substance abuse as a disease, i can't think of any
20
other disease that receives the treatment that this one receives from
21
this bar. there's no other disease where the bar is able to do the things it
22
does to you that it does in the case of alcoholism or substance abuse.
23
they can't do that to you if your a hemophiliac, if you're a diabetic, if
24
you're a narcoleptic, if you're a lot of different things they can't. but
25
because there's some stigma to substance abuse or the treatment of
26
chronic pain, there's politics that surrounds that that enables the State
27
28
420/433
Bar to basically, and the LAP program acting in concert, to have
unlimited power, really.
Judge McElroy: I am going to let it in. this is his belief, but let's
move on to beyond your belief.

Mr. Coughlin: i would just say in a lot of these letters that were
6
7
not admitting into evidence these letters aren't really purporting to say
anything of truth, its just giving these peoples general yeah this guy's
ms.
9
you know someone who I could hire something like that. it's not saying
yeah we saw this guy do this at this date. So, I don't know why there's
10
this great need to to impeach these letters or to cross examine these
11
letters.
12
Judge McElroy: they're not going in.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Is there anything that you would suggest I speak
14
to?
15
Judge McElroy: I can't be your lawyer.
16
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not asking you to.
17
Judge McElroy: yes you are.
18
Mr. Coughlin: no, I'm just asking you as a judge, is there anything
19
20
that you would prefer I address.

Judge McElroy: I think you need to focus on the purpose of this
21
hearing which is do you possess good moral character to be admitted as
22
a member of the bar and address the rebuttal that was given.
23
Judge McElroy: Okay, as I can see it i initially showed I my met
24
my burden to show i had good moral character which brought on the
25
State Bar's rebutting of that and the State Bar's rebutting of that
26
consisted of testimony directed to whether or not I was a patent agent
27
or attorney-
28
421/433
Judge McElroy: But, i mean let me just put it this way, what
you're doing now is really kind of getting into argument. what we need
is direct examination.
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: ok then I guess I probably don't have much to offer

your honor.
Judge McElroy: ok so are you resting at this point.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what we'll do is close at this point and
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin you need to go first in terms of your argument.

Mr. Coughlin: I'm just gonna have a real short argument your
10
honor i think you had an opportunity to see everything about this case
11
and I don't know that there's anything I could I could at this point that
12
would change what you've heard about this case.
13
Judge McElroy: well let me just kind of focus your attention. good
14
moral character encompasses honesty, fairness, candor,
15
trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and
16
obedience to the laws of the state, and respect for the rights of others
17
and for the judicial process, and that's what you need to address. and
18
that means what you would have to do is look at what the State Bar has
19
presented in terms of rebutting those characteristics. and that is this
20
academic dishonesty investigation, your conduct at the University of
21
Nevada Las Vegas law school, your misrepresentations in terms of
22
employment history. Your termination from the law firm Schuering,
23
Zimmerman & Scully. your US patent and trade and trademark office
24
and your substance abuse. material omissions in terms of what you
25
didn't report to the State Bar on page 12. to report all failures to
26
appear, not reported. civil judgments and defaults, not reported.
27
financial obligations not reported. address history not reported. that's
28
422/433
their information in terms of your failure to prove rehabilitation, good
moral character. so you need to address those issues in your closing
arguments. so if you could proceed with your closing argument. I think
Ive given you enough in terms of what you need to focus in on.
Mr. Coughlin: Your honor, I want to talk about those things first,
things showing that I don't have good character and then we've got the
list of things the State Bar presented to show that I don't have good
character. I want to talk about those first, the things showing that i
ms.
don't have good character. Because, really, in reality, we don't even get
into this list ever until we get into this list in this process. that is the
10
overwhelming majority of applicants really don't do anything to show
11
they don't have good character besides not have this list. And it's only
12
once you have a list of these things that you have to go above and
13
beyond that as i understand it, beyond just not having such a list. you
14
have to now become a community leader and have community service
15
activities and and be of the highest repute.
16
so to start with, this list, as i understand it, includes the issue
17
about whether I'm a patent attorney or agent. it seemed that you pretty
18
much through that issue out or said that it's not overwhelmingly
19
supportive of anything. so Im not really going to speak to that because
20
I think it's a non-issue at best. Unless you would suggest otherwise.
21
But, I'd rather move onto on my misstatements about my employment
22
history? which as I understand it speaks to whether or not i worked at
23
the law library for six months or less or more and i would say that from
24
the testimony offered it's still not clear whether I did work there for
25
more or less than six months. we still haven't established that. and I'd
26
also say well, let's say I worked there for six months and one day. is that
27
really such a strong point in the State Bar's case? it's clearly close
28
423/433
whether or not i worked there for six months. it's not like I worked
there for three years and omitted it. i don't think there's any question
that it's not long related employment. it's a job as a clerk at a lobby in a
library. it's not law related. Im not researching anything for any
partners. I'm not even filing anything for any attorneys or any legal
entity. so i can not see denying someone a law license based on that.
Next, we have the academic dishonesty issue. well I think it's pretty
clear that I both reported that correctly and was cleared of any
ms.
academic dishonesty. I think where the murkiness comes into this is
that UNLV's investigation seemed to change course midway. at first,
10
it's an academic dishonesty investigation and I don't recall ever being
11
told it was anything other than that. Then, somewhere along the line in
12
Mr. Burns's letter, it becomes, well no academic dishonesty took place,
13
we are clearing you of that but we're going to warn you about
14
something we're not really sure just don't do it again, whatever it is you
15
didn't do. So I think that's where the murkiness comes into this, but it's
16
clear Mr. Burn's letter says no academic dishonesty took place and it's
17
clear from my update to the State Bar that I reported that as such. So,
18
again I don't see what the State Bar is resting its case on with that
19
issue. so they are 0 for 3 as far as i can tell so far. And these first three
20
were the chief transgressions that the State Bar was leading with,
21
highlighting in their case and all three have fallen flat. So, the ones to
22
come after these three are of even lesser importance. with regard to not
23
fulfilling- i believe the language about the LAP program that State
24
Bar gave was that I hadn't gained insight according to the LAP and I
25
hadn't taken them up on their recommendations. it's always
26
interesting with the LAP, it's such a strange kind of reality. you get
27
words like recommendations, but they come with consequences that
28
424/433
make them far from recommendations. so it's kind of like no you can't
be a lawyer because you didn't follow our recommendation. why not
just say it's your requirement? it's like saying it's a confidential
program why say it's confidential why do you put that on? confidential
lawyer assistance program? this is out in your hallway out here. This
program is confidential. Confidential? it says that again and again and
again. I don't see how its confidential. I have had areas of my life
trotted out before this court that otherwise I wouldn't have ever
ms.
imagined would happen. So to say it's confidential would seem to
9
10
11
support undermining the public's trust in the LAP program. i think the
LAP needs to be straight about what it's doing.
It's like i said in my Pre-Trial Statement. It is fostering an
12
atmosphere of secrecy and just a lot of shame. it's a shame based
13
approach I've noticed. i don't think it's conducive to recovery. Granted,
14
it's not easy. it's not an easy problem in our society, dealing with
15
recovery as it relates to professionals, specifically. So, Id have to
16
temper any criticism I have with that by saying, yes it's a hard
17
problem. far be it for me to act like I know how to deal with it exactly.
18
but I can say that I feel as someone who's gone through this through
19
this process, that i have some ability to describe what my experience
20
was like.
21
other issues that the State Bar brought up in their rebuttal
22
included my activities at the law school. I don't believe we've gotten
23
anything more than hearsay with regard to what other activities we're
24
talking about. they certainly didn't appear in the pretrial statement
25
and and I don't know that they formed any foundation in the State
26
Bar's original denial of the application. so i don't know how i can speak
27
to any other activities that they are mentioning. if they're referring to
28
425/433
something Christine Smith, a Dean at the law school was talking about
with a paper with a Professor Stemple that was due for a writing
requirement that we had, some questions about what its content needed
to have, i don't believe that became part of this case at all.
I'd note know when we're talking about whether or not i did what
the LAP program asked me to do, your honor? I'd note that my
experiences with the LAP program, to give you some context, is that I
provided them with several hundred signature pages showing i had
ms.
9
gone to AA, this three-page letter from an attorney AA sponsor I had,

this Kelly Testolin letter, included in exhibit 39 page 37 and a number
10
of other materials to demonstrate where my recovery was at. After
11
about a year-and-a-half of back and forth over whether or not the LAP
12
program can get my medical records it was decided that they can get my
13
medical records to monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse. They were
14
able to go and get whatever medical records they want. So, once they
15
got those, at my initial face-to-face meeting with LAP, that's where a
16
radiologist gave me his pain management and psychiatric opinion on
17
ADD and chronic pain treatment. that's also where the LAP program
18
gave me their treatment plan for me for the next six months, during
19
my evaluation.
20
Ms. Kagan: I object to this on the basis that it's not in evidence.
21
Judge McElroy: Im going to sustain the objection.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Right now I'm arguing with respect to-
23
Judge McElroy: But you only can argue what's in evidence.
24
Mr. Coughlin: The LAP program required that I attend a recovery
25
activity once a day for 180 days straight and gather proof of that. in
26
commenting on whether or not i took LAP up on their
27
recommendations or fulfilled the terms of the evaluation plan or
28
426/433
gained insight? Im showing that not only did i go to a recovery activity
once a day for a hundred and eighty days straight, that's six months, no
Sundays off, they want you to go to an AA meeting seven days a week
for six months despite the fact that you've already shown them several
hundred slips of AA meetings and activity in recovery-
Ms. Kagan: objection, your honor. Well, I think the information
we- what exhibit are we referring to? i need to see if it's in evidence? I
think it did come into evidence.
ms.
9
Mr. Coughlin: It is part of the LAP's Evaluation Plan.

Judge McElroy: No, I think it's part of another exhibit.
10
Ms. Kagan: The signatures your honor?
11
Judge McElroy: yes.
12
Ms. Kagan: that's part of exhibit 3.
13
Judge McElroy: which was admitted into evidence.
14
Ms. Kagan: Right, but what I am objecting to specifically, is the
15
16
17
18
180 meetings in 180 days. there's beenJudge McElroy: Well, there are the signature pages that he went
to the meetings, okay, so.
Mr. Coughlin: there's actual pages from LAP saying here's your
19
evaluation plan for the next six months you have to do all these things
20
and it's like three pages of stuff and I had to get it notarized and had to
21
do this several times.
22
Judge McElroy: ok.
23
Mr. Coughlin: and it says you need to get drug tested or be
24
available to be drug-tested 12 to 36 times a year and it's like this 14-
25
point Evaluation Plan, so if Im terminated from the LAP program, i
26
would imagine it would need to be for violating one of these 14 points?
27
and I'm addressing these 14 points by showing you not only have i
28
427/433
gathered these signatures, not only has exhibit 52 shown you that we
made ourselves available for whatever test Ms. Polly wanted me to take
in her very late in the day request or correspondence about getting a
test done in February for an Abeyance Agreement the ends in
February? The meeting lists also speak to going to the Lawyer's
Concerned for Lawyers meeting once a week, the Nevada Bar's analog to
the LAP program or The Other Bar, so I don't know at what point in
that Evaluation Plan did I not meet those terms?
ms.
9
10
Judge McElroy: Okay that's your argument. So, let's go on. let's
move on.
Mr. Coughlin: I haven't been able to locate the Pre-Trial
11
Statement and I think that would be beneficial for addressing all that
12
issues you highlighted. I don't believe that the pretrial statement for
13
the bar is an exhibit?
14
Judge McElroy: it's not.
15
Mr. Coughlin: it's not. Oh, here it is.
16
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna give you another 10 minutes. You need
17
18
to wrap this up.

Mr. Coughlin: DMV stuff in Nevada? I'm not gonna speak to that.
19
Its not worth one of my 10 minutes. about speeding tickets? Whatever.
20
and I don't mean that whatever to say I don't respect the process and
21
that I didn't ultimately pay those tickets, I just mean I don't think it's
22
worth five years of interacting with the California Bar and this stage
23
of a trial in 2007 for failures to appear based on not having proof of
24
insurance from 2000-2001? I think that's kind of beneath this process.
25
civil cases judgments and defaults related to the River Arms and Uni-
26
shippers? I don't have anything new I would add on that. I admitted to
27
certain things, i said i could have done some things better and I was
28
428/433
uncertain on certain things. I think that that is what it is. I have
already covered the law school employment. the fact that the State Bar
of California trying to say somehow I didn't report this Hale Lane
employment until it doesn't say when? But the State Bar certainly had
knowledge of my employment at Hale Lane as did the LAP program as
demonstrated by return addresses and letterheads throughout these
exhibits. to say it was not until May 14 th, 2004 that applicant told us
about his business? Well, I don't think that business got off the ground
ms.
9
until sometime in early 04, so I certainly don't feel that that's too late
to report or to update this moral character application. Certainly,
10
sitting in this room now looking at it and seeing the court requirements
11
one can look at that and say yeah that's something he should have
12
done, but I would submit that a lot of this involvement with the LAP
13
program and a lot of the recovery based activities that were salient in
14
my life at that point might help mitigate in the transgression that is
15
not reporting something like having a business until a couple months
16
after you started a business.
17
I'm not going to comment on my address history. i don't see where
18
that deserves as much respect as is being given by the California bar
19
with regard to what they are resting their case on.
20
I am going to reiterate and earlier argument made with respect to
21
the State Bar's position that I somehow misled them about my
22
attendance at meetings in 2002 because I didn't tell them until 2004
23
because in letter i said i had only been a social drinker up to a point? To
24
me this is so obvious, but I don't know how obvious this is to people who
25
haven't lived through it. But, you certainly don't become a member of
26
AA overnight. and you don't become sure you are a member of AA and
27
28
429/433
that you are going to stop drinking or what have you and then the the
next week report that to the California Bar.
that's not how it works, and the bar's statements in this regard
which speak to Mr. Coughlin having misled us by saying he was a
social drinker whereas later on he told us he had attended AA meetings
in 2002, I think just serves to show that the bar could use some
sensitivity training or overall exposure to recovery. Alcoholism and
substance abuse is a pretty big problem in our society. Alcoholism
ms.
9
alone, it's like the third biggest killer, or death due to alcoholism or
recovery from. So the State Bar's shame based approach with regard to
10
well you went to an AA meeting in 2002 and then here you said you
11
thought you were only a social drinker and then later on you're saying
12
no I- To me it's shameful.
13
The Patent and Trademark Office issue I've feel has been
14
addressed. financial obligations? yes, i had some things, still owe some
15
things? Those are things that need to be reported? absolutely would I
16
like to pay back, yes. i would like to come back and hopefully Ill be
17
able to do so, but what can i say? the rule says you're supposed to report
18
those things. I didn't report those things until sometime in 07, so.
19
Now, with regard to misrepresentations related to my conviction
20
for a dry reckless i don't know that i misrepresented anything. The
21
Bar's claim that i made some misrepresentation is apparently based on
22
the arresting officer's report. Well, I guess that would mean I had
23
misrepresented something if in fact everything that's included in a
24
police report is taken as gospel and not as some buzz words that an
25
officer who has been celebrated five times by MADD? And given out
26
some 3,000 or 6,000 DUI's in a 11 year period? i don't know if there is
27
hardly that many days in an 11-year period, to give out that made DUI.
28
430/433
so to say that everything that's in his buzzword laden report is
somehow conclusive that anything I said that contradicts that is a
misrepresentation? i don't agree with at all. that's like saying
everything a prosecutor says is true and I think anybody who's
witnessed some of these trials would know that that's not true.
employment history. We already talked about that. scholastic
discipline. we went into to this thing about the computer. i really don't
know what to say about that. I reported it. its it's in my application, the
ms.
9
10
11
language about it. to me, now, it's all coming down to well how many
feet did you move this computer? into the same room that it was
already in.
academic dishonesty investigation? We already talked about
12
that. I reported it as there was a finding that no academic dishonesty
13
took place. and this is where Im confused because early on in this
14
academic dishonesty investigation, from my recollection, they make
15
you sign this letter saying yes I'm aware I'm being investigated for
16
academic dishonesty. so from there to getting a letter saying you're
17
cleared of academic dishonesty, but we also are kind of going to give
18
you a warning about what? I'm still not sure what they're warning me
19
about. something about threatening somebody through an email or
20
something? which Mr. Tratos clearly said he wasn't threatened or that
21
maybe he was threatened but not in that way? I don't know.
22
Candor? My refusal to answer questions? you might refuse to
23
answer questions to if someone was trying to hijack your medical care
24
five minutes after meeting you and dangling your career as a carrot or
25
wielding the not having a career as a hammer to get across their own
26
political agenda which is frankly laden with religiosity and a real old-
27
school hardline approach to the treatment of substance abuse as it
28
431/433
relates to chronic pain or ADD from people who don't even practice in
that field. who want to- Its just shameful. it's like a bankruptcy judge
going in and wanting to do death penalty cases or something five
minutes after he decided he wanted to do that. So, with that, I would
say that I don't have anything further to add other than I appreciate
your listening to me your honor and the care that you gave to this case
because i have felt that my case has been heard and appreciate that.
8
ms.
9
Judge McElroy: Thank you.

Ms. Kagan: I'll make this brief. at the outset of this case the State
Bar stated that this the case was all about candor and cooperation and
10
that based on Mr. Coughlin's inability to be candid and failure to
11
cooperate he has demonstrated that he has not met his burden to prove
12
that he has the requisite good moral character for admission to the
13
State Bar. The State Bar has admitted evidence unrebutted evidence of
14
many admissions from the original application, failures to update the
15
original application, as well as glaring misrepresentations regarding
16
the information that Mr. Coughlin did provide. specifically with
17
respect to his arrest in 2001 after the movie theater incident, his DUI in
18
2003, his law school discipline, including the academic dishonesty
19
investigation, and the movement of the computer, as well as his
20
substance abuse and his termination from the Schuering law firm.
21
based on all of these failures to provide to the State Bar, material
22
omissions or outright misrepresentations, the State Bar has proven that
23
Mr. Coughlin lacks the requisite character for admission to the State
24
Bar of California. thank you.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, do you have any rebuttal to that?
26
27
28
432/433
1
2
Judge McElroy: Okay, thank you. So, at this point the case is
closed and it will be submitted today, okay. thank you
Mr. Coughlin: your honor when you say submitted today?
Judge McElroy: that means I have 90 days to write a decision.
Mr. Coughlin: thank you.
(End)
7
8
ms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
433/433

5 8, 9, 10, and 22nd, 2007 All Four Trial Dates Combined Transcript in Re Coughlin 06-M-13755 CBX

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5 8, 9, 10, and 22nd, 2007 All Four Trial Dates Combined Transcript in Re Coughlin 06-M-13755 CBX

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO

Trial on Application for Admission to Practice Law

Judge Patrice McElroy

Judge McElroy: This is the matter of Zachary Coughlin case

Ms. Kagan: Morning, Your Honor, Susan Kagan appearing on

manner. There's gonna be opening statements from both parties.

Applicant is then going to present his case the applicant is initially

going to furnish enough evidence of good moral character to establish a

case. In this case, the applicant is going to have to furnish enough

evidence that he has good moral character which would include

Bar is going to have to present evidence to rebut that good moral

of bad moral character with proof of rehabilitation or an explanation

are we going to schedule them?

Ms. Kagan: Most of my witnesses are scheduled for tomorrow okay

Ms. Kagan: I don't think it's going to be a problem if anyone is not

Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, how many witnesses do you have?

court wishes to hear from me.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, should I stand up?

Judge McElroy: Sure but whatever it is you're comfortable with.

Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon, Your Honor, I apologize again for

being late. I think I should start off by addressing what would

probably appear to you as a paucity or a lack of witnesses and things of

I don't think anything I've done is so bad that it should prevent me

from getting a license, especially when viewed in combination with the

Judge McElroy: Do you have an opening statement.

Mr. Coughlin the evidence will show that he has an inability to be

candid with State Bar in relation to its investigation and this

failed to update his application. When he did provide updates to his

application there are many misrepresentation made in those updates

evidenced by his deposition testimony as well as his dealings with this

Mr. Coughlin will be unable to prove that he has a requisite good

character for admission.

Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what you should do now is present

your evidence of good moral character and because you're representing

Mr. Coughlin: Can I bring my notes with me to the stand?

Judge McElroy: Sure.

(The oath was administered to Mr. Coughlin.)

Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon, Your Honor, to present in a

case law in this state in licensing and moral character applications

have been viewed as so minor as to not qualify as the type of omission

that reflect adversely on candor, particularly when viewed in light of

reckless driving charge. I reported the incidents at law school to the

from the State Bar's Pre-Trial Statement some of the omissions in

is also listed as a patent agent it's unclear whether he's a patent

thoroughly. Throughout this five years of interacting with the State

estimate, somewhere in the range of over six hundred signatures from

meetings and present documentation as well as letters of support from

Lawyers program, and attorney mentor, and several other attorney

letters of recommendation testifying to my character specifically.

did we get a list of exhibits from you?

Judge McElroy: All these attorney mentor letters, where are

Mr. Coughlin: They're included within the State Bar's.

Judge McElroy: Okay.

Mr. Coughlin: Pretty much everything I would have submitted as

an exhibit has been covered by State Bar's.

Judge McElroy: So you don't have any exhibits, okay?

Judge McElroy: Okay, I mean what I need is evidence of good

good moral character included in that is one's attempts at

rehabilitation as I understand the law. In addition to what would be

contained in Exhibit 3 when I did an update to my moral character

application which is followed by approximately 45 pages of signatures