Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FILED
AUG 2 0 Z007
STATE BAR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
SAN FRANCISCO
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DE ARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO
In the Matter of
ZACHARY BARKER COU6HLIN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION
-------r-)
I. Introduction
After receiving an adverse m ral character determination from the Committee of Bar
Examiners of the State Bar of California committee),applicant Zachary Barker Coughlin appeals
that decision and seeks a de novo dete
ay
8,
For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that applicant currently lacks the requisite
good moral character necessary for ad ission to the practice of law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, 6060,
subd.(b);! Rules Regulating Admission 0 Practice Law,rule x.)
II. Mora Character Determination
Applicants for admission to pra tice law must possess good moral character (Bus. & Prof.
Code, 6060, subd;. (b)), which incl
observance of fiduciary responsibility, espect for and obedience to the laws of the state and the
nation and respect for the rights of others
X,
1.) An app icant for admission has the burden to prove his or her own
Where the committee rebuts an applicant's prima facie showing of good moral
character with clear and convincing e idence of applicant's bad moral character, the burden falls
upon the applicant to demonstrate his 0 her rehabilitation.
1095-1096.) The more serious the bad haracter evidence,the stronger an applicant's rehabilitative
showing must be.
favor.
(Id.
Educational Background
Applicant attended the Universi y of Washington from 1995 through 1996. In January 1997,
applicant enrolled in the University of Nevada, Reno, graduating with a B.S. degree in biology in
1999. In August 1999,applicant attend d the University of Nevada,Boyd School of Law,Las Vegas
(UNLV), graduating with a J.D. degr e in 2001.
B.
r examination.
Character and Fitness (Nevada Commit ee) had several issues of concerns regarding applicant,such
as his criminal charges,the incidents at t e law school,employment termination and mental stability.
psychologist and submit to and abi e by any course of treatment deemed necessary and
recommended by the psychologist; (2) ubmit a signed release allowing the State Bar of Nevada
access to any counseling records; (3) sub
-2-
On December
21, 2004,
conditioned again on the terms of his d ferral as set forth above. On March
Court of Nevada issued an order ad
Supreme
2008
deferral agreement.
C.
On September
28, 2002,
California. Thereafter, he submitted u dates and amendments to his application on six separate
occasions - January
2004;
and February
On January
9, 2003;
February
3, 2003;
March
19, 2003;
September
15, 2003;
May
31,
15, 2007.
7, 2003,
the com
On January
9, 2003,
corrected his September 2002 applicati n. Applicant told of the Nevada Supreme Court's deferral
of his application for a license to practi e law in Nevada, indicated that he had passed the October
2002
a copy of his police report from the arres ing agency regarding his January
to describe his relationship with alcoho and/or drugs. On March
committee and confirmed that he pled
California Vehicle Code section
23103
010
contendere on March
( ry reckless).
-3-
19, 2003,
11, 2003,
applicant's psychological evaluation re ort and a copy of the arrest and conviction documents in
applicant's resisting arrest misdemean r in October 2001. By July 13, 2004, the committee had
decided that it was not in the position to recommend applicant's admission to the State Bar of
California. The committee decided that hey would hold in abeyance until January 13, 2005, so that
they could evaluate applicant's particip tion in the Lawyer Assistance Program of the State Bar of
California (LAP) which has been establi hed to provide assistance with mental health and substance
abuse issues to members of the legal pr fession. On July 19, 2004, applicant signed a stipulation
with the committee that his recovery fro
The stipulation required applicant to
submitted in connection with his appl ation and further required applicant to sign a waiver of
confidentiality and release of informati n to allow LAP to report the evaluation and findings to the
committee.
On June 22, 2005, applicant cont cted LAP and completed the telephone intake process. On
February 16, 2006, the LAP Evaluation
The LAP Evaluation Committee decid d that applicant had not successfully complied with their
recommendation and thus, terminated a plicant's participation in LAP.
On June 7, 2006, the committ e advised applicant that it declined to recommend his
admission to the State Bar to the Supr me Court of California. The decision was reached after
consideration of several factors, includi g applicant's 2003 conviction for reckless driving, being
disci plined while a law student by
UN V, lack
Hall
v.
-4-
The court finds that applicant m de a prima facie showing of good moral character based upon
his testimony at trial. Respondent test" led that he possesses good character and that his omissions
on his application to the State Bar wer minor as compared to what he did admit.
v. The Committee's
The committee presented clear
of good moral character. The evidenc involved applicant's lack of candor at his deposition and
material omissions from and misrepres ntations on his application regarding various issues, such as
his misconduct at UNLV, employmen history, status with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
substance abuse, DUI conviction, cou
obligations and mental health. The co rt agrees with most of the committee's contentions.
A.
Mark Tratos (Tratos). A final paper w s one of the requirements of the class. Tratos required that
the students turn in both a hard copy an a disk of the final p aper. Applicant said he turned in a hard
copy but did not turn in a disk of the har copy. Tratos informed applicant that he had neither a hard
copy nor a disc of the paper. Applicant dmitted that he did not turn in a disk, but insisted that he had
turned in a hard copy of the paper. He s bmitted an affidavit of a student who said she saw him turn
in a hard copy of the final paper. Appli ant was unable to locate the final draft of his paper on the
hard disk. There were several e-mails exchanged between Tratos and applicant regarding hiring
someone to try and retrieve the paper fr m his hard drive. At some point it was decided that hiring
someone was too cost prohibitive.
The committee asserts that appl cant misrepresented the outcome of this investigation and the
evidence.
In the attachment to his Septe ber 28, 2002 application,applicant wrote:
"Secondly,the State Bar of Ne ada informed me that another concern regarding my
application arose out of an aca emic dishonesty in,,:estigation that was completey
resolved in my favor in Dec
ber of 2001.. Dunng the course of the academIC
investigation and subsequent N vada Bar inqiry everal students signed affidavits
.
indicating that they had in fact een me tum III thIS pper. ... For esons t?at e hll
.
very unclear to me,Mr. Tratos t en instIgated an offiCIal academIC IllvestigatlOn mto
whether or not I actually wrot the paper when it was do [sic]. After the student
judicial affairs officer for my I w school conducted a full investigation...the matter
was resolved with a finding th t no academic dishonesty took place on my part."
[Emphasis added.]
. .
The committee argues that ap icant was disingenuous when he stated that the academic
dishonesty investigation was "complet Iy resolved in [his] favor" because the investigation was in
fact resolved with a formal letter of w mingo Also,contrary to applicant's statement that several
students had signed supporting affidavi s,only one affidavit was ever submitted to the Nevada State
Bar in relation to the inquiry.
While applicant had clearly exa gerated the outcome of the investigation in that it was not
"completely" resolved in his favor,give the formal letter of warning,and only one affidavit,and not
several affidavits, was signed, the
misrepresentations. That standing alon does not reflect on his moral character.
However,what is of more conce
the outcome of the investigation is appli ant's behavior surrounding the investigation. Based on the
e-mails exchanged between applicant an Tratos.it is clear that Tratos took no position with respect
to whether applicant had written or not
his "lost paper" by paying for a data reco ery service. Instead, applicant sent unprofessional e-mails
that unnecessarily escalated a frustrating situation for both applicant and Tratos. At the hearing in
this matter,Tratos testified that he foun the e-mails troubling and irrational and that no professor
would be comfortable in getting those co espondence. Thus,applicant's conduct negatively reflects
on his moral character.
-6-
2.
Question
the reasons fully below, providing the n me of the school, the date, the reasons for discipline, and the
final disposition."
Applicant marked the box "yes' and stated:
" I was fined $100 by UNLV fo moving a com puter monitor & keyboard
attach to my computer for an h ur in Dec 01, 2002."
10 feet
to
The committee contends that ap licant made misrepresentations about his scholastic discipline
in this matter because he gave the wron date of the incident (the correct date was October
11, 2001),
$100
university staff time to reconnect and c eck the computer systems. And, he used the computer for
personal, nonacademic work without p rmission.
The court does not find that ap licant made material misrepresentations regarding the law
school computer. Stating an incorrect
$100
This charact rization of the computer incident standing alone does not
hearing. Applicant testified that he was not sure whether he had authorization to use the computer
and that he simply knew that he needed
laptop working. Applicant's testimony s not credible. He knew or should have known that he had
no authorization to dismantle a comput r monitor, keyboard and mouse set up in the microforms
room of the UNLV Law Library as the c mputer was in an area not for general student use.
-7-
B.
Employment History
a.
Applicant was employed by th law library at UNLV from October 1999 through May 2000
and was terminated from that positio
for poor performance and for taking $10 from the library
change drawer without permission. Th committee contends that because applicant omitted from his
initial September 2002 application abou the UNLV library employment, he made a misrepresentation
regarding his employment history. W en explaining his failure to include this employment in his
application, applicant stated:
Yet,in his application for admi sion to the State Bar of Nevada filed on February 2,2001,
applicant listed the dates of his emplo
ough May 2000 at the formal hearing before the State Bar
.
Nevada State Bar seeks different informa on from that of the California State Bar. The Nevada State
Bar asked for information on all empl yment whereas the California State Bar asked for any
employment history that lasted longer th n six months. Since applicant indicated that he was not
employed in December through January uring the winter break, there is no clear and convincing
evidence that his employment lasted long r than six months. Thus, he was not obligated to provide
information about his law library emplo
"managerial conflicts" on the Nevada app ication and explaining on the California application that
he was borrowing the $10 overnight and re
is no clear and convincing evidence that hi borrowing the $10 on an emergency basis reflected upon
his moral character.
b.
ark Office
he was applying
to take the examination with the U.S
. atent and Trademark Office in Oct
ober 2002 and that he
misrepresented his status as an "Agent'
when he should have been listed as an
"Attorney" since he
was a member of the Nevada State
Bar.
Applicant passed the October
"Agent " with the U.S. Patent and Tra
de
update,applicant provided a cop
2 02
2, 2003, he
905.
was listed as an
nse,listing applicant
as "Agent. " In his February 15,200
7 upd te,applicant stated
that he was " [l]icensed as a patent
agent
since May of 2003 (though upo
n beco ing an attorney that
may now be classified as a
patent
attorney. " As of the hearing, app
licant i listed as an "Agen t" wit
h the U.S. Patent and Tradem
ark
Office.
According to the U.S. Patent
and rademark Office,if app
licant wanted to seek registratio
n
as an attorney, he had to submi
t an origi al certificate of goo
d standing issued within the
last six
months from the Nevada Supre
me Court. ut because applica
nt's membership with the Ne
vada State
Bar has been conditional, the
re is no clea and convincing
evidence that he was in good
standing.
2A year later,in his May 31,20
04 pdate to the Califo
rnia bar,applicant finally
reconciled the differences and
indicated th t he was terminat
ed
"due to not being licensed in
Nevada or California. " In his
February 15 2007 update,he
again reiterated that he was let
"due to the unexpected delay in
go
becoming icensed to practice
law in Nevada. "
-9-
us
as an agent. His failure to mention
0 the application that he was
taking the patent and trademark
examination is insignificant and doe
s ot reflect on his moral character.
3.
Substance Abuse
-10-
--
---- -------
C.
Material Omissions
lows
-11-
1.
s:
River Arms Apar ments v. Zachar
y B. Coughlin, Washoe County,
case No.
REV 2005-001396, an unlawful det
aine action against applicant for
default in payment of rent at
1255 Jones Street, #132, Reno,
NV 895 3 in the amount of $66
0. In April 2005,judgment wa
s
entered for plaintiff, but applica
nt has no made any payment.
a.
h.
-12-
he therefore thought he
had no duty to report the lawsuit bec
use he was now in a litigation mode
with the State Bar. His
purported confusion is incredible and
is without merit.
3.
Employment History
a.
Address History
5.
a.
b.
c.
Financial Obligation
s
Aargon Agency,Inc.
AFNI,Inc.
Chase
-13-
Date Due
Amount Due
October 2006
$ 470
October 2006
$ 148
January 2007
$ 824
D.
Collection Service of
Digestive Health Ce
December 2006
$ 133
Collection Service of
Digestive Health Ce
January 2007
$ 419
November 2006
$1,532
January 2007
$ 267
Macy's
October 2005
January 2007
$1,845
Revcare,Inc.!
Reno Regional Medic I Center
January 2007
$1,200
November 2005
$ 836
55
as movie theater.
u ry 2002.
-14-
that
-15-
olved.
VI. Applicant
2003 to February
nges to information
previously furnished the committee.
Bu rather, applicant was constantly
amending his application
due to his repeated significant omissi
o s from the application. Applica
nt cannot show that his
repeated failure to fully disclose info
rmat on on his application was uninten
tional or mere negligence.
(Cf. Hallinan v. Committee ofBar
Exa iners (1966) 65 Ca1.2d 447,
473.) More importantly, the
material and numerous omissions not
onl reflect applicant's cavalier atti
tude toward the application
process but also reflect adversely on
his oral fitness to practice law.
(Cf. In re Gossage (2000) 23
Cal.4th 1080, 1098.)
-16--'--- ----
appreciation for details and full discl ure in documents he verifies under penalty of perjury as true
and complete. Completion of the ap ication is not merely an exercise on the way to admission to
practice. (Cf. In the Matter of Gidd ns (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 25, 34.)
Repeated acts of negligence or omiss' n may constitute moral turpitude and "prove as great a lack
of fitness to practice law as affirmative violations of duty." (Bruns v. The State Bar (1941) 1 8 Cal.2d
667, 672.)
Applicant has a heavy burden
must present evidence of rehabilitation by his sustained conduct over an extended period of time that
he is a person of good moral character Cases authorizing admission on the basis of rehabilitation
commonly involve a substantial perio of exemplary conduct following the applicant's misdeeds.
(In re Gossage, supra, 23 Cal. 4th at p. 1 096; see also Kwasnik v. State Bar (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 1 06 1 ,
1 07 1 -1 072 [emphasizing seven or eigh -year period that elapsed since applicant wrongfully evaded
payment of a civil judgment]; Martin B
v.
[emphasizing nine-year unblemished r cord after applicant was accused of rape as a Marine]; Hall
v.
Committee olBar Examiners (1979) 5 Cal.3d 730, 742 [emphasizing six-year period in which no
complaints were lodged against applic nt's employment business after his business license was
temporarily suspended by an administr ive agency].)
Here, applicant did not present an evidence of rehabilitation over a substantial period of time.
It is clear that in the past applicant ha alcohol abuse problems. What little evidence applicant
presented on rehabilitation with respect t alcoholism was all self-reported. In short, there was little
credible evidence presented that applica
appears to be suffering from certain psyc iatric disorders including ADHD, chronic depression, and
passive-aggressive and oppositional-defi nt personality traits, which appeared to have affected his
behavior in this trial. Applicant's conduc was unprofessional and troubling. He was never on time
for the hearing and he randomly berated
no sense.
-17--------------
upon whether that person has commi ed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.
(Hallinan
v.
Committee of Bar Exa iners (1966) 65 Ca1.2d 447, 453.) Applicant's repeated
his evasive testimony regarding his al ohol abuse evidencing lack of candor precludes any finding
of exemplary conduct over a meaning I period of time. Therefore,the court cannot conclude that
applicant is not likely to continue to c
Each act of applicant's misco duct is not so serious as to find him lacking good moral
character. But,in examining the combi ed record of his multiple acts,particularly his lack of candor
and irrational,combative behavior thr ughout these proceedings,the court is confronted not by
isolated or uncharacteristic acts but by a continuing course of misconduct extending over a period of
several years. The risk of applicant repe ting this misconduct is considerable. Thus,the court cannot
find applicant to possess the requisite g od moral character for admission.
Nevertheless,it is possible that i applicant submits an application that is detailed, complete
and accurate,if he seeks and undergoes ubstance abuse/mental health treatment over
an
extended
period of time,if he can show good fa th in satisfying the judgment creditors,and if he obtains
unconditional admittance to the Nevada tate Bar in 2008,then applicant may be heading to the right
direction in satisfying his heavy burden
-18-
II. CONCLUSION
Therefore, applicant Zachary Barker Coughlin has failed to establish that he currently
possesses the requisite good moral c
California.
Dated: August
rt-, 2007
PAT McELROY
Judge of the State B
-19-
I am a Case Administrator of the Stat Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and
not a party to the within proceeding. ursuant to standard court practice,in the City and County of
San Francisco,on August 20, 2007, I eposited a true copy of the following document(s):
DECISION
by first-class mail,with posta e thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service at San Francisco,Cali mia,addressed as follows:
ZACHARY B. COU
LIN
[ X]
I hereby certify that the foregoing is tr e and correct. Executed in San Francisco,California,on
August 20, 2007.
;
I'
,l:::::lt"-
,.,..",/
.
",
'
-
'4
'",Lauretta Cramer
Case Administrator
State Bar Court
,/
\,,",.:::',--,
. ,'"
1:.,2%, ( C)t;r:-,o/p'7t.-C_J'-,
''-<... .
"
...".....' .
CATE OF SERVICE
[Rule 62(b), R les Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the St e Bar Court. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to
the within proceeding. Pursuant to
on February 6,2008, I deposited a t
[XJ
by first-dass mail,
with p
{X]
89503
addressed as follows:
, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing i true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on
February 6, 2008.
Certificate
of Service. wpt