10 10 16 Coughlin Appellate Brief 06-M-13755 CBX With Exhibit 1 489 Page Trial Transcript Full

al
1
2
3
Zachary Barker Coughlin

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
4
5
STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
REVIEW DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO
8
9
IN MATTER OF APPLICANT
10
FOR ADMISSION
11
ZACHARY BARKER
12
COUGHLIN
)
)
)
) Case No: 06-M-13755-PEM
)
)
)
)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
The undersigned wishes to make clear at the outset of this
filing his tremendous respect for Judge McElroy, the State Bar Court,
the CBX, LAP, the OCTC, Ms. Kagan, the State Bar of California, and
the others involved in this matter prior to setting forth the basis for
this appeal. Applicant previously sent in a check to have this Court's
Clerk order the transcript prepared, but such has yet to be done. A
Transcript of the Trial in this matter is attached in Exhibit 1.
26
27
28
Trial Transcript pages 453:25-454:5: "Mr. Coughlin: ...I

agreed to certain things with the LAP program or with this
1
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bar that were related to monitoring recovery from alcohol

abuse- Judge McElroy: Well, if you had complied with the
program, we wouldn't even be here, okay?"
T454:14-28: "Judge McElroy: Okay, but that is why you
are here. And you could have presented evidence in regard to
that, and you haven't. Mr. Coughlin: In regard to what?
Judge McElroy: To LAP. To why you didn't complete LAP.
You could have put that on as your case. Mr. Coughlin: I
don't even know what- Have we even discussed what I
supposedly didn't complete in LAP? Have we ever
enunciated that?
T446: Judge McElroy: They are experts in the issue of
whether you have been terminated from LAP and that is an
issue here, but Dr. Tucker doesn't know, other than the fact
that you have been terminated. Mr. Coughlin: So it is
whether or not, or is it why I was terminated? Judge
McElroy: Why? Whether? Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so is this
going to why? Judge McElroy: Don't argue with me. Ask the
next question."
For this insistence that whether or why Applicant didn't
complete LAP is the only real issue in this case, the Decision spends
essentially all of it's 22 pages avoiding that issue altogether.
Judge McElroy permitted the Bar's rebuttal of Applicant's prima
face case (which itself was permitted only 13 pages) to consist of 423
pages worth of testimony in the transcript (and that is in light of the
Court refusing Applicant to conduct any cross-examination therein of
25
26
27
himself). Coughlin was permitted 37 pages worth of transcript to put

on his rebuttal of the Bar's rebuttal of Applicant's prima face case.
28
2
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
Judge McElroy ordered Applicant's rebuttal of the Bar's rebuttal be

limited to 37 pages where she permitted the Bar's rebuttal to utilize 423
3
4
5
pages of the transcript. And there still is not evidence in the record to
support the Decision here.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR APPEAL:

1. Should Applicant be Granted a License to Practice Law in
California?
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a de novo review of the Decision by Judge McElroy, whom
found that applicant currently lacks the requisite good moral
character necessary for admission to the practice of law.
III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
CBX delayed Applicant's application after taking issue with a
law school academic dishonesty investigation for which Applicant was
cleared of any wrongdoing and an arrest that was dismissed (that
applicant reported despite such not being required), and a dry reckless
driving conviction.1
25
26
27
After Applicant informed the Committee at an informal

conference that he had attended some Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
28
3
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
the Committee required2 that the Applicant sign an Abeyance

Stipulation agreeing to a waiver of confidentiality and release of
3
4
5
information while his recovery from alcohol abuse be monitored by

an agent from the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Such LAP agent, the CBX's letter indicated would monitor his
recovery and would submit reports during the abeyance period to the
moral character analyst who will be monitoring his abeyance", which
the CBX indicated would end six months from the signing of the
Abeyance Stipulation. Applicant promptly signed the required
stipulation.3
The LAP failed to send any such report until the very end of the
six month abeyance period as originally defined in the purported letter
from CBX in Exhibit 554. The LAP agent then later misrepresented the
date of Applicant's initial contact5 with the LAP program, in an
attempt to extend the six month abeyance out as long as possible in
retaliation6 for Applicant's taking prescribed medications the LAP's
twelve step true believers did not agree with his being prescribed.
25
26
27
The LAP then attempted to coerce applicant to extend his

abeyance period with the CBX so that he may make another attempt to
28
4
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
become compliant and perhaps face his disease and begin his recovery7
despite Applicant having complied with all terms in an onerous
3
4
5
Participation Plan8 (which went well beyond the scope of the

monitoring called for by the CBX Abeyance Stipulation) insisted upon
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
by the LAP. Applicant fulfilled all conditions of any agreements or

stipulations with both the LAP and CBX.
The Office Chief Trial Counsel's Kagan did not call anyone from
LAP or the CBX as a witness, and never had the hearsay and double
hearsay documents she offered as exhibits authenticated 9. The LAP
never indicated applicant had been terminated from participation in
the program for cause. Rather, the LAP simply finally admitted that
it had milked the six month abeyance term out for as long as it was
willing to push the envelope. CBX allegedly purported 10 to recommend
denying Applicant's application, but apparently refused to indicate in
what way applicant had demonstrated any failure to satisfy the terms
of his abeyance agreement with the committee, much less demonstrate
any lack of candor. The CBX also purportedly cited Applicant's dry
25
26
27
reckless driving conviction as a factor. The OCTC proceeded to trial

arguing a grab bag of half thought out, poorly researched, carpet
28
5
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
bombed accusations that its own Response to Applicant's Application

for Admission indicated it would not assert at trial.
At the very start of the trial before the Bar had proved the
4
5
existence thereof whatsoever, Judge McElroy declared that the
6
7
8
9
10
applicant is going to have to furnish enough evidence that he has good

moral character which would include evidence that he has addressed
any alcohol abuse issues.11
After the Court ruled the Applicant met his burden to prove a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
prima facie case12 that he possessed the requisite character for

admission, the Bar failed to put on any evidence from the CBX or LAP
to prove if, much less how, Applicant had failed to comply with any
agreement with either. Applicant offered a great wealth of
rehabilitative, candor, cooperation, and character evidence 13 despite
there being no real need to given no acts of moral turpitude were ever
proven and there was no evidence that Applicant had a substance abuse
issue of any variety that would prevent him from suitably practicing
law.
25
26
27
The Decision in this matter ignores the fact that the State Bar of
Nevada and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United
28
6
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
States Patent Office had already conducted thorough moral character

evaluations and admitted Applicant by the time of trial in this
3
4
5
matter.14 Such Decision also ignores the fact that another court had not
found Applicant guilty of a DUI, the law school never formally
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
disciplined Applicant in any way as to any matter, the misdemeanor

movie theater arrest was dismissed, etc., etc. There was a complete lack
of faith or credit given to the decisions of finder's fact that came before
it by the Decision.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. There is No Competent or Substantial Evidence to
Support the Decision, Substantial Due Process Rights Were Denied the
Applicant, and Prejudicial Errors Were Committed.
The Decision concluded the Bar met its burden as to three alleged
areas of misrepresentation and a grab bag of omissions. Such included:
1) applicant misrepresented the reason for his termination from law
firm, 2) that applicant misrepresented his relationship with alcohol
and treatment for alcohol abuse to the committee, 3) that applicant
misrepresented the events surrounding his DUI arrest in his update to
25
26
27
the committee in Exhibit 2, and 4) that applicant made material

omissions from his application. There is no competent or substantial
28
7
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
evidence to support any of the above, and as to all substantial due

process rights were denied the Applicant and prejudicial errors were
3
4
5
6
committed.
1) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent the Reason for His
Termination From a Law Firm
The Decision here strains credulity in purporting to find a
8
9
10
misrepresentation15 was made with respect to alleged inconsistencies

between Applicant's reports to the Bar's of California and Nevada the
11
12
13
reasons for the termination of his employment at the Schuering law

firm.
14
15
16
Applicant's February 23, 2003 update16 to the CBX did not

attribute the source of opinions concerning his termination from a
17
18
19
Sacramento law firm contained therein to anyone in particular. 17

Likewise with the letter of 2/23/03 to the State Bar of Nevada. 18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Decision notes:

applicant told the California State Bar that the law
firm let him go because of his recent arrest. But on the same
day, he told the Nevada State Bar that he was let go because
he was not licensed in Nevada and that the Supreme Court's
deferment order was too far out for them to keep him
employed. The court finds that these discrepancies evidence
a lack of candor.
28
8
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
Discrepancies do not rise to the level of misrepresentations,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
especially where the Decision admits Applicant's later updates 19

reconcile any such alleged discrepancies. Further, the Decision ought
be required to determine which letter contains a misrepresentation, if
any, rather than simply assert there are discrepancies between the
two20. One, there is arguably no discernible difference between these
two assertions. The Decision fails to note that in both the
correspondences to both the Nevada21 and California bar he also
reported that he had just recently been arrested for a DUI, which
obviously changes the import of the Exhibit 19 letter to CBX sufficient
to dilute any discrepancies between it and the Exhibit 15 letter to the
Nevada Bar.
Two, either letter's statements fail to specify from whose
viewpoint such characterizations are made. From the employers? From
the employee? From common sense? From third parties? Neither the
CBX or Nevada Applications prompt applicants to specify from whose
25
26
27
vantage point the rationale for leaving employment is to come. They

are hardly mutually exclusive sentiments, as a DUI arrest and the
28
9
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
delay in getting a law license issue are commonly considered

interchangeable, especially vis a vis being terminated by a law firm.
3
4
5
Additionally, there is a due process deprivation here given the

lack of notice and opportunity to be heard as to this issue. This reach of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
an issue was not even mentioned in the Bar's 12/11/06 Committee of Bar
Examiners' Response to Application for Admission as a basis for
opposing applicant's admission nor in the CBX's 6/7/06 letter
recommending denial of the Application for Admission. How fair is it
to base this Decision on this unnoticed, unpled issue with which
Coughlin was afforded no real opportunity to be heard 22 and for which
the Bar provided no evidence to demonstrate any of these various
assertions to be false? The issue, largely through Judge McElroy's own
indications that any alleged misrepresentation thereto was a non-issue,
was barely addressed at either trial23, in closing either side's closing
argument24, or in the two depositions Applicant was required to submit
to, nor in the informal conference with the CBX 25.
Further, Coughlin was employed at Schuering, Zimmerman &
25
26
27
Scully from 1/6/03 to 2/14/0326 and that the Nevada Supreme Court
entered an order deferring its decision on his application for a license
28
10
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
to practice law on 12/18/02. Coughlin provided the Schuering firm a

copy of the Nevada deferment order upon becoming aware of it upon
3
4
5
starting work at the firm. The firm did not fire him then. Coughlin's
reported his DUI arrest of 1/23/03 to the Schuering firm prior to being
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
fired. The firm fired him on 2/14/0327. Such does not mean that the
DUI arrest was not a cause of the firing, and such does not mean that
the DUI arrest did not make the specter of Coughlin getting licensed in
either California or Nevada anytime soon enough to be acceptable to
the Schuering firm. As such, there was no misrepresentation
whatsoever.
Further, the bar did not put on not evidence to refute Coughlin's
assertions. No testimony or even hearsay documentation from anyone
from the Schuering firm whatsoever. As such, there is no clear and
convincing evidence that such assertions by Coughlin are reporting
why he believes he was fired, or why he was told he was being fired, or
what the Schuering firm told Coughlin to tell the Bar was the reason
he was being fired, etc.
25
26
27
2) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent His Relationship

With Alcohol and Treatment for Alcohol Abuse to the Committee
28
11
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
The Decision further, incredibly, finds a lack of candor or

credibility where the applicant self reported that he had attended
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to the Committee, where it notes:

the committee presented clear and convincing
evidence that applicant misrepresented his relationship
with alcohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the
committee. In his March 19, 2003 update to the application,
applicant responded to the committee's request for
information about his relationship with drugs and alcohol
as follows: "I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties
and have never been more than a social drinker ... I have not
been referred to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol
abuse, nor am I current enrolled in treatment . "
In fact, as part of applicant's nolo contendere plea to a
violation of California Vehicle Code 23103 on March 11, 2003,
applicant as ordered to attend eight Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) meetings on June 10, 200328... In addition, at the
informal conference with the committee on July 8, 2004,
applicant for the first time admitted to having a history of
alcohol abuse29 and been a member of AA since January 1,
2002.30
Therefore, the court finds that applicant lacked candor
in his March 19, 2003 update, given that he was ordered to
attend eight AA meetings and that he had a history of
alcoholism. When applicant admitted to alcohol abuse31 at
the informal conference, the committee advised applicant
that it would not recommend his admission but offered to
hold his application in abeyance until January 13, 2005, so
that the committee could evaluate his recovery from
abuse.32
The Decision is internally inconsistent where it purports
Applicant's update in Exhibit 2 of 3/19/03 to be a misrepresentation,
28
12
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
yet fails to identify Applicant's Answer33 to Question 14.5 Chemical

Dependency (wherein he checked No) in his 9/28/02 CBX
3
4
5
Application to be a misrepresentation or omission. Applicant should

not be expected to interpret CBX's Crary's 3/5/03 request to Applicant
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to require more than the CBX Application itself calls for. Regardless,
even if Crary's letter requires (or requests) more, Applicant's
statements in his Ex. 2 3/19/03 letter were truthful.
Applicant did not admit to alcohol abuse at the Informal
Conference. Further, there is no support in the record for the finding
that Coughlin had a history of alcoholism 34 at the time of the 3/19/03
update to CBX (much less that he himself was aware35 of such or
thought so) or for viewing being ordered to attend 8 AA meetings 36 in a
plea deal to be a referral to a treatment program for substance abuse
(much less for finding Applicant had the requisite scienter
requirement37 to make his statements regarding such a
misrepresentation)38.
Applicant never admitted to having a history of alcohol abuse.
25
26
27
Regardless, there is no evidence in the record for just when Applicant
began to have a history of alcohol abuse, much less alcoholism
28
13
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
(much less marijuana39 abuse disorder), much less when, if ever,

Applicant began to know that himself. Such approach combines the
3
4
5
violation of one's right against self incrimination with demanding the

unlicensed practice of medicine. The Bar's own expert, Dr. Tucker, did
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
not provide any testimony as to when such point occurred and no

evidence is found in the record to support the view that Applicant had a
history of alcoholism as of the time of his 3/19/03 letter to CBX. 40
At trial in this matter, Applicant testified that he did not believe
being ordered to attend AA meetings was tantamount to a referral to a
treatment program41. Applicant further testified and put on evidence
that he was not sure if he has ever had any sort of substance abuse
problem.42 The Bar put on no evidence to support any contention that
such is tantamount to such.
At such Informal Conference Applicant stated: on January 1,
2002 I became a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous. I had a slip in
January of the following year, culminating in my arrest. At trial in
this matter, Applicant described the then process of evolution his
25
26
27
thinking had undertaking with respect to his relationship to Twelve

Step programs, indicating that he had started trying them out in early
28
14
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
2002, though indicating he had been subjected to a lifetime of Twelve

Step indoctrination and or harassment by the same family member, his
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
father43, whom called44 the Dean of his law school in 2003 and claimed
that Applicant had a chemical dependency issue.
3) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent the Events Surrounding
His DUI Arrest in his Update to the Committee in his Exhibit 2 Update
The Decision found :
"The committee presented clear and convincing
evidence that applicant misrepresented the events45
surrounding his January 2003 DUI arrest in his March 19,
2003 update to the committee46. As previously found, in
January 2003, applicant was arrested for driving a motor
vehicle under the influence of marijuana and later pled
nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code
section 23103, reckless driving...47
...Applicant misrepresented the events surrounding
his arrest as evidenced by the following: 1) a urine sample
tested positive for marijuana; 2) the arresting officer noted
that applicant had bloodshot48, watery eyes, was unsteady on
his feet49 and had a strong odor 50 of marijuana emanated
(sic) from his automobile51, person and breath; and 3)
applicant's inability to perform any52 of the field sobriety
tests53 administered by the arresting officer.
Moreover, California Highway Patrol Officer Jeff
George, the arresting officer in that incident, testified at
this hearing that applicant was clearly 54 under the
influence of marijuana when he was arrested. The officer
testified that applicant was unsteady on his feet, his gums
were coated with green pasty film and he was unable to
perform the field sobriety test.55"
28
15
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
It was error to find that the Bar met the clear and convincing
burden of proof as to such issue. The Bar's own expert witness
3
4
5
testified that such a positive urine test for marijuana could not
establish marijuana use within the four hours of arrest 56 that Officer
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
George admitted was necessary for one to be under the influence. 57

Officer George himself contracted the finding the Bar met the
clear and convincing burden where he admitted there was a mere
preponderance58 of evidence supporting his opinion that Applicant was
then under the influence of marijuana at the time of his arrest. Officer
George testified it was merely more than likely within four hours of
the time of the arrest59 that applicant had ingested marijuana (with
his failure to specify to any extent whatsoever what amount of
marijuana being further indicative of the uncertainty attendant to
marijuana DUI prosecutions). George admitted such was his standard
for whether someone was under the influence of marijuana, giving no
shrift to whether one ingested a de minimis or enormous amount of the
substance. So in the face of the Bar's own witnesses admitting their
25
26
burden of proof was not met, the Decision found such was met anyways.
27
28
16
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
Prejudicial error, a lack of due process, and a lack of competent

and or substantial evidence to support the Decision's finding here is
3
4
5
evident. Judge McElroy prohibited Applicant a legitimate opportunity

to put on evidence to rebut the plainly ridiculous claims of Officer
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
George, which included a patently absurd assertion that the black and
gray smoke one inhales while smoking the marijuana George claimed
to have smelled the freshly burnt smell of left Applicant's tongue
coated with a green pasty film. Such also included a variety of
inconsistent statements respecting the incongruous things Applicant
could do during a field sobriety test in light of the things he allegedly
could not do.60
It was error to allow Officer George to testify for the Bar as to
how many DUI arrests he had made to support a view that he had
credibility and expertise, yet to refuse to allow questioning to establish
that such a number of DUI arrests was outrageously high and
indicative of an officer gaming the system via misconduct. 61 Similarly,
it was error to permit George to testify to his training and experience
25
26
27
but then to refuse to allow any legitimate cross-examination as to

such.62
28
17
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
George's testimony was implausible, inconsistent 63 and, at times,

lacked credibility.64 Such was the case where George testified about
3
4
5
whether he grew annoyed with the Applicant's pre-arrest questions

regarding why a breath alcohol test (PAS test) was necessary.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Likewise, was Officer George's testimony that, post-arrest, he offered a

passive-aggressive Applicant65 a choice between a breath, urine, or
blood test. This, where George claims he first explained the implied
consent testing law in California,66 and claims Applicant thereafter
chose to take a urine test rather than a breath test, even where
Applicant's post-arrest preliminary alcohol screening breath test
indicated a negligible reading for alcohol.
Contrary to his testimony, Officer George did not explain to
Applicant California's implied consent law.67 George's testimony that
he offered a clearly not even close to drunk Applicant the choice of
taking a breath test that would not reveal use of marijuana, only for
Applicant to implausibly then skip68 straight to choosing a urine test69,
combined with the highly unusual and implausible administration
25
26
27
thereafter of a PAS breath test using a preliminary alcohol

screening device (post-arrest, not less) all adds up to less than fully
28
18
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
credible testimony by Officer George, and prevents a finding that

Applicant was misrepresenting whatever it is 70 the Decision purports
3
4
5
him to have misrepresented.71

It was error to base the Decision on Officer George's testimony
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
purporting to have smelled freshly burnt marijuana then refuse

Applicant an opportunity to conduct any real cross-examination on
that issue.72
The Decision is unsound where it finds Applicant made
misrepresentations regarding the 1/23/03 DUI arrest merely because
his testimony differed73 from that of the arresting officer.74
4) Applicant Did Not Make Material Omissions From His
Application
17
18
19
The Decision notes: "The committee presented clear and

convincing evidence that applicant made material omissions75 from his
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
application..." then inaccurately describes Applicant allegedly

receiving mere notices of failures to appear76 as being "convictions" for
such, which they plainly are not, and as such, any alleged nonreporting77 of such fixed fix it tickets, basically, is not evidence of
anything sufficient to consider in denying an application for
admission. Further, speeding tickets are not "convictions", they are
19
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
citations. There was no evidence put on by the Bar to establish that

speeding tickets are traffic citations, and the limiting language in
3
4
5
the CBX referencing reporting reckless driving, etc., implies such need
not be reported.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kagan's arguing such are convictions in her Pre-Trial Statement

and at trial78, is misconduct similar to her arguing summary evictions
were civil actions that included money judgments that Applicant not
only failed to report, but was in default on. The zombies in 28 Days
Later think Kagan is out of control and needs to slow down.
The Decision adopts Kagan's inaccurate characterization of
summary eviction orders as judgments, then inaccurately indicates
Applicant had yet to make any payment on those or the small claims
judgment79, all without citing to anything in the record to support
such findings. The Decision then inaccurately 80 finds that Applicant
admitted to never having reported the small claims action and

judgment to the CBX, despite Applicant testifying to the contrary and
being improperly prohibited from calling Kagan as a witness in that
25
26
27
regard, and where Kagan violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in

failing to substitute out as counsel upon such becoming required of her.
28
20
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
The rest of the purported material omissions 81 were either not

omissions, were actually reported, or were clearly not material.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ASSORTED OTHER PROBLEMATICS ASPECTS OF DECISION:

The OCTC made misrepresentations about the length of the
Abeyance Agreement and what privacy rights Applicant would be
required to waived by signing such, and concerning Applicant's alleged
termination for cause by either the CBX or LAP. 82
LAP did not provide either Applicant or the CBX any indication
that Applicant had violated any agreement with it, and certainly did
not do anything even close to that by the 1/15/05 expiration of the six
month Abeyance Agreement. The Abeyance Agreement indicates that
only a failure to comply with such during the six month term thereof
would be admissible in a State Bar Court hearing. The purported
termination from LAP or alleged failure to comply with the Abeyance
Agreement thereby occurred outside of such six month term, and is
therefore inadmissible per agreement with CBX.
There is nothing in the record to support such a view that
Applicant violated any agreement with LAP. Exhibit 683 itself
mentions only recommendations. Yet, Judge McElroy admitted on
the record that there was nothing in Applicant's past to justify the
denial of his application, but, rather that the only reason this trial was
even being held (in an admission of the illegitimacy of all the Bar's
other claims) was due to LAP allegedly terminating Applicant from its
program.84
The Decision notes (in reliance upon an unauthenticated
document containing double hearsay) that on June 7, 2006, in Exhibit
55, the Committee advised applicant that it declined to recommend his
admission, purportedly citing as a basis a variety of things that were
plainly inaccurate (such as Applicant's allegedly being disciplined
while a law student by UNLV, lack of candor, and failure to satisfy the
terms of his abeyance agreement with the committee 85, none of which
are true) or preposterous, such as basing such on a 2003 conviction for
dry reckless driving.
The Decision then inaccurately notes: the LAP Evaluation
Committee met to review applicant's participation in LAP. The LAP
21
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Evaluation Committee decided that applicant had not successfully

complied with their recommendation and thus86, terminated applicant's
participation in LAP.
The Bar's Kagan committed misconduct in the affidavits she filed
in Support of a 3/20/07 Motion to Compel Answers regarding
Applicant's alleged alcohol issues where she swore: 1. ...All statements
made herein are true and correct and if called upon, I could and would
competently87 testify thereto. ... On July 8, 2004, applicant participated
in an informal hearing with the Committee. At that hearing, applicant
claimed to have an addiction to alcohol,88 which he contended caused
89
some of the conduct investigated90 by the Committee in relation to its
moral character determination. 3. On July 19, 2004, pursuant an
agreement between applicant and the Committee, applicant executed a
Stipulation ... wherein he agreed to have his recovery from alcohol
addiction91 monitored by State Bar of California's Lawyer's Assistance
Program ("LAP").
Further, Applicant was prohibited from putting the complete text
of the transcripts and associated files from his admissions case in
Nevada, or even reading portions thereof into the record as Kagan was
permitted to, by Judge McElroy's rulings at trial, which limited (T175176) the time Applicant was allowed to put on evidence and make
argument and refused to rule on many of the exhibits and portions
thereof that the Bar withdrew at trial that Applicant himself offered 92
in a dramatically unfair manner considering the extreme leeway and
length of time give to the OCTC's Kagan to put on her case. 93
The Bar's Susan Ilene Kagan, Esq. did make the meritless claim
that Applicant committed some failure to disclose civil actions (and
later defaults) in arguing summary94 eviction95 cases are civil actions
or administrative proceedings requiring reporting under the
Application. Per the Justice Court Rules of Reno Township (JCRRT),
summary eviction actions are not civil actions. The Bar made a
misrepresentation in characterizing such summary evictions
proceedings (which, per both California, and Nevada law (and pretty
much all other states), may not result in monetary judgments) as
plenary unlawful detainer actions resulting in two different civil
judgments and defaults thereon and alleged multiple material
omissions in connection thereto . New York and Florida transplant
28
22
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kagan can not claim summary evictions are civil actions that may
result in monetary judgments in those states either.
Kagan's 12/11/06 Response further misrepresented in asserting
that Applicant did not update his application in any way as to the
small claims action judgment which Applicant testified as to having
updated Kagan as to in a telephone conversation. Kagan violated the
Rules of Profession Conduct in not withdrawing herself from the case
upon becoming a witness to such matter. Judge McElroy refused to
allow Applicant to call Kagan to testify to such matter at trial. 96
The Decision fails to accord any significance to Applicant's
justifiable reliance upon the advice of counsel Fishkin, who concludes
such 4/15/05 letter to CBX in Exhibits 38-39 by stating: It would be
unfair to Mr. Coughlin to require him to become a full fledged enrollee
of LAP when he is there for monitoring, not full participation.
The Decision fails to note is that the Bar's Exhibit 37 is an
incomplete (where is the Fact Sheet and other enclosures?) (in the
continuation of the theme97 of Kagan offering exhibits (see Exhibits 2 ,
7 (missing a subpoena on Applicant's former employer, Hale Lane,
likely due to the Severance Agreement being violated without a court
order), 15, 16 (much is missing from what was filed with the Court along
with the Bar's Pre-Trial Statement, and now those binders filed
therewith are no longer with the Court, but rather, the truncated
versions of many exhibits apparently are all that is left. Why?
Applicant's then Nevada attorney's Pre-Hearing Brief was filed with
the CA State Bar Court on 4/10/07 in, 37, and 41,57, 65 98 (Las Vegas
arrest report incomplete, why?) also), and 70, 5, 13, 14, and 59 she has
unethically excluded portions of) hearsay document that was not
authenticated at trial. Such does not included the enclosures the CBX's
Lawson references therein (In addition , I have enclosed a copy of the
Abeyance Policy99 that is incorporated in the stipulation. CBX
Lawson's letter to Applicant in Exhibit 37 admits that the abeyance
term ended on January 13th, 2005. It is impermissible to allow the trial
court judge here to review materials then to excise them from the
record for the appellate court's review.
Notice the dubiousness of the CBX or LAP claiming applicant
only enrolled in LAP on 6/30/05 (Exhibit 50, which the LAP failed to
ever send to applicant or his attorney, but rather sent only to the CBX,
dishonestly indicates it is a notice of initial contact per a 6/22/05
23
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
telephone intake interview despite the fact that the LAP's own
documents in Exhibit 72 establish that Applicant had already had a
wealth of contacts, interactions, and correspondences with LAP,
starting on 3/5/03, and at several points in 2004 and early 2005) and or
implying that the monitoring called for in the Abeyance Stipulation
somehow only began on 6/30/05, when Exhibit 39, page 29 is a letter
from Applicant to the LAP's Poley detailing that called for under the
Abeyance Agreement. Such is found in the 1/12/05 letter from
Applicant's then attorney Fishkin to CBX, which states: the Abeyance
time is about to expire for Mr. Coughlin. Applicant offered into
evidence all of the exhibits that the State Bar withdrew.
Similarly, see Applicant's letter of 11/30/04 to LAP's Poley in
Exhibit 39, page 15, and the lack of any evidence in the record to
demonstrate that LAP ever (see Exhibit 41) responded 100 to the
following from the Applicant: Please do not hesitate to let me know if
there is anything more I need to do to be in compliance with the
Abeyance Agreement, which calls for an agent from the LAP to
monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse during the abeyance period.
Likewise, see Exhibit 39, pages 29-30 for a similar request to LAP by
Applicant of 12/27/04. See Exhibit 42 for more evidence of LAP's
misconduct and overreaching. See Exhibit 43, which demonstrates the
dishonesty of CBX's Debra Murphy Lawson in her misrepresenting 101
what is included in the Abeyance Stipulation as somehow requiring
Applicant enroll in LAP as a full scale participant102 in such then
costly and invasive five year long program designed for those whom
had been found guilty of professional misconduct, rather than merely
calling for Applicant's recovery from alcohol abuse to be monitored by
an agent from LAP during a six month abeyance term to end on
1/15/05. See, also, Exhibit 51, which the Bar attempted to hide (though
it still persisted in its meritless arguments) once it became clear that
the LAP had engaged in improper conduct throughout its interactions
with Applicant, especially as to its refusal to recognize the length and
starting point of the abeyance term, and refusal to send the CBX the
report it was getting paid to produce.
The Decisions' failure to consider the many character letters (the
Bar's Pre-Trial Statement mentions no dispute as to the admissibility
of such character letters) (especially in Exhibit 39, pages 16-19 and 3536, 16-39 from attorneys in Nevada, including one employed by the
24
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
State Bar of Nevada; see, also Exhibit 72, page 29, the Well-being
Monitor Report from Applicant's attorney AA sponsor and co-worker
in the LAP file) evidencing Applicant's rehabilitation was prejudicial
error, especially considering the extent to which hearsay evidence was
routinely admitted when offered by the Bar. See, also, Exhibit 40, pages
3-4, and Exhibit 53 page 4, letters from Applicant's then treating
psychologist attesting to his fitness and rehabilitation through nearly
50 hours of therapy (Dr. Hunter's report in Exhibit 29 (which
enthusiastically indicates that Dr. Hunter strongly believes Applicant
is fit to practice law and has no moral or characterological
shortcoming and that his current level of functioning is excellent.
The Decision notes: applicant was completely evasive about his
alcohol abuse. He testified that he was not sure of the date of his
sobriety and whether he consumed any alcohol in the past four years..
One's not being sure of the date of their sobriety (whatever that
loaded term means) is hardly evidence of their being completely
evasive. Regardless, being completely evasive is not nearly as
significant as one simply lying about something or making a
misrepresentation, particularly given the dubious violations of
Applicant's constitutional rights here attendant to the Court ordering
him to answer such questions when clearly they are privileged.
The Decision inaccurately notes: Applicant did not present any
credible evidence on why he was terminated from LAP. On one hand, he
claimed that he did not know why he was terminated from LAP. On the
other hand, he claimed that he was terminated from LAP because he
would not let LAP jeopardize his physical well-being. In other words
applicant's reasoning is without merit. Applicant offered 103 all of the
Bar's withdrawn exhibits, which included Exhibit 52, wherein his then
attorney Fishkin writes LAP requesting clarification and instruction
as to what Applicant is being asked to do by LAP in attempts to so
comply. Kagan committed misconduct in persisting with her claims in
light of her own withdrawn exhibits, and offered nothing to rebut such
evidence, which Applicant sought admission of at trial, but Judge
McElroy appears to have refused to admit or even rule on the
admissibility on. Further, CBX never provided to applicant or his
attorney the report then attorney Fishkin's letter in Exhibit 54 of
5/26/06 indicates he understood the CBX would be providing Applicant
a copy of. The Bar failed to put on any evidence to rebut this claim.
25
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, it was error not to admit the three letters from treating
physicians attached thereto, which amounted to a refusal to allow
Applicant to rebut the Bar's claims vis a vis his interactions with the
LAP program and those as to his fitness inherent to the Dr. Tucker
testimony offered by the Bar.
For Judge McElroy to brazenly admit that she does not view
testimony from either Applicant of Dr. Tucker, or the Bar's utter
failure to put on any evidence whatsoever to support its contention that
Applicant was terminated from LAP or why he was terminated, as
credible evidence demonstrates error. That is to say nothing of her
abusive efforts to prevent Applicant from putting on any evidence in
that regard too. For what McElroy openly admitted she saw as the only
real issue in the case and reason for this matter going to trial, she
limited Applicant's right to put on evidence as to such in a preposterous
manner considering the hours and hours of court time permitted Kagan
to drone on about matters not identified in either her 12/11/06 Response
or 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement.
Applicant actually presented a wealth of credible evidence that
not only was he not terminated from LAP during any period of time in
which LAP had any such ability to do so, but that any too late attempt
by LAP was baseless, and that LAP offered nothing in the way of
support for the double hearsay contention in Exhibit 6 that such was,
implicitly, due to some failure to follow a mere recommendation.
Here, the Court simply fails to acknowledge that which it would
not let Applicant testify to (deeming the statement against interest by
LAP that it would punish Applicant for taking prescribed medications
that it felt meant he was not sober in a twelve step zealot sense
inadmissible), the fact that LAP had no justifiable reason for its
attempted termination of Applicant's participation in LAP, other than
its illegal attempts to practice medicine without a license. Further, it
is not Applicant's responsibility or burden to prove why he was
allegedly terminated from LAP. So, of course, where the Bar offered no
evidence (and failed to even have the vague and unspecified double
hearsay in Exhibit 6 authenticated), it certainly was not Applicant's
burden to rebut any such thing.
Regardless such alleged termination occurred subsequent to the
expiration of LAP's involvement per the Abeyance Stipulation. To
allow LAP to behave as a petulant child making it up as it goes along
26
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serves neither the State Bar Court,the CBX, nor the OCTC, nor does it
serve LAP. This is to say nothing of the incredible damage done to the
defense bar here, and the professional reputation of Jerome Fishkin,
Esq., given the obvious extent to which LAP, the CBX, and the OCTC
were able to alienate applicant from his attorney, with Fishkin
admitting he should probably be fired to avoid any further retaliation.
Further, Judge McElroy's minute orders make clear, despite Spevack,
that she felt it permissible to punish applicants for asserting their
constitutional rights in these regards.
"From: Jerome Fishkin (jerome@fishkinlaw.com) You moved this
message to its current location. Sent: Wed 3/15/06 10:40 AM To:
Coughlin Zach (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) We have both received
Pam Poley's letter of March 8, 2006. Therefore, the project of writing
her is now obsolete. You have two choices as I see them. One is to accept
Poley's offer; the second is to deal directly with CBX. They both have
pros and cons. Re: Proposed Letter to Pam Poley Your relationship with
LAP has been star crossed since the beginning. I doubt that another six
months will accomplish anything for you. However, if you did do
another six months, AND if it met with their approval, your chances of
admission would be excellent. IF there were a continuation of problems,
your chances of admission would be slim. Given Poley's comments to
you about me, however, I think this option works better if you fire me
(at least for six months!).... EIther way might work; either way might
fail. I am inclined toward the second approach because it is consistent
with your actions, therefore intellectually honest. And I doubt that you
plus LAP works. That goes double if Poley continues to tell you I'm the
problem...."
The Decision then, without indicating the Committee met its
burden of proof, spends an inordinate amount of time discussing things
that were neither noticed as issues for trial by the Bar nor which was
Applicant permitted any legitimate opportunity to rebut. The Decision
inaccurately found that:
Substance Abuse and Mental: The committee
requested a forensic clinical assessment of applicant,
focusing in particular on whether he currently 104 suffers
from alcohol abuse or other drug abuse or dependency , and if
so, what if any monitoring, testing or treatment is
27
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, Dr. Douglas E. Tucker105, a board certified

physician in the field of medicine and psychiatry, examined
applicant on April 7, 2007. He reported that applicant met
the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and marijuana abuse 106
defined in the DSM-IV...He also reported that applicant
received a score of 14 on the Michigan Alcoholism Screening
Test, a diagnostic 107 questionnaire in which a score of three
points or less is considered nonalcoholic, four points is
suggestive of alcoholism, and five points or more indicates a
diagnosis of alcoholism. In addition to alcohol and
marijuana abuse, Dr. Tucker determined that applicant met
the diagnostic criteria for other psychiatric disorders 108
which contribute to his liability to abuse substances. These
included ADHD Combined Type (Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder), chronic back and neck pain,
chronic depression, and passive-aggressive and oppositionaldefiant personality traits.
Dr. Tucker could not testify as to whether applicant is
currently abusing alcohol or marijuana. ... The court is
concerned whether applicant is currently109 abusing alcohol
and marijuana such that it would impair his ability to
function as a lawyer 110and/or impact on his moral character.
Applicant was deliberately evasive111 on the issue of
alcoholism on his application, during his deposition and at
this hearing. For example, applicant was unable to tell the
court anything about his sobriety112, other than the fact that
he attended AA meetings.113 Therefore, this court cannot at
this time resolve any reasonable doubts 114 on the issue of
alcohol in applicant's favor because of his lack of candor115
and his failure to present any evidence of his current state
of sobriety116.
Moreover, applicant's mental stability concerns this
117
court . Associate Dean Christine Smith of the law school at
UNLV testified that while applicant was a student at
UNLV, she thought he had substance abuse/mental health
issues118 because applicant exhibited several instances of
irrational behavior where he escalated and misinterpreted
certain encounters. Similarly, at this hearing, applicant
28
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
repeatedly conducted himself in a most unprofessional

manner, raising sufficiently serious questions regarding his
mental condition. In particular, when he cross-examined the
witnesses, his behavior was troubling. Applicant ignored the
court's instructions119 and berated his cyber law instructor,
Tratos, as well as his school, during the testimony regarding
applicant's 2001 academic dishonesty investigation. He was
totally disrespectful, unnecessarily hostile, and downright
rude and arrogant to Highway Patrol Officer Jeff George
concerning his January 2003 DUI arrest.
And, when the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer
Won Cho was testifying about the 2001 movie theater arrest,
applicant was totally unprofessional, rude, and belligerent
towards the officer. He constantly interrupted the officer's
testimony and belittled him at every opportunity. Thus,
applicant's substance abuse and mental health stability are
at issue and unresolved.120
Next, the Decision, after spending nearly twenty pages going
through this matter issue by issue and only finding the Bar met its
burden of proof as to three alleged misrepresentations and a grab bag of
material omission, then purports to have found that the Committee
has sustained its burden of proof in rebutting the applicant's prima
facie case with respect to the following claims: applicant's lack of
candor at his deposition121 and material122 omissions from and
misrepresentations on his application regarding various issues, such as
his misconduct at UNLV123, employment history, substance abuse, DUI
conviction124, court appearances, civil actions, residential addresses,
financial obligations and mental health125.
The Decision then notes:
Applicant Has Failed to meet his burden to establish his
rehabilitation126 finding very little, if any, evidence was offered by
applicant with respect to his rehabilitation. The fact that Judge
McElroy feels very little, if any, evidence was offered is further
evidence of a lack of due process herein. Applicant offered an enormous
wealth of evidence as to his rehabilitation, even though the Bar did
not really prove Applicant did anything to support denying a law
29
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
license in the first place. As such, Applicant displayed tremendous

character in going above and beyond in persisting in the fact of this, the
most dubious of moral character witch trials127 .
The Decision indicates that applicant was constantly amending
his application due to his repeated significant omissions128 from the
application. Applicant cannot show that his repeated failure to fully
disclose information on his application was unintentional or mere
negligence. Such displays little regard for the fact that one being
abused by the twelve step zealots129, after a while, likely has no idea
what they really think130 and or what is really true, much less when
such became the case. They simply know that there is seemingly no
disagreeing with twelve step zealots.
The Decision further strains credulity where it purports that
Applicant has a heavy burden in this case. Considering the multiple
acts of misconduct without actually specifying what if anything
Applicant had done that the Bar had met its burden to prove was
misconduct. A dry reckless driving conviction is not misconduct
sufficient to create a heavy burden to show years of sustained
rehabilitation including a Mother Theresa CV.
The Decision's logical inconsistencies continue in noting: It is
clear that in the past applicant has alcohol abuse problems .131 What
little evidence applicant presented on rehabilitation with respect to
alcoholism was all self-reported. In short, there was little credible
evidence presented that applicant no longer has a substance abuse
problem.
Ironically, what little evidence there was that Applicant had
alcoholism was all self-reported too, right? So, the decision finds
Applicant's testimonial evidence form Applicant to be credible when
it is convenient and to lack any credibility whatsoever when it is not.
Certainly the DUI arrest report was not evidence of such as it noted a
negligible reading on the BAC test. None of the records offered from
UNLV supported any such accusation. It seems this is a case of an
Applicant having personality conflicts with extremely rancorous and
dubious, though politically connected people in the law school and
moral character admissions world, then being coerced into attempting
to explain such via some twelve step epiphany, only to find that such
was to include embracing the ill effects of LAP's unlicensed practice of
medicine. The Decision wishes to convict Applicant of a lack of candor
30
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
while hanging him with his own displays of candor. Regardless, the
Decision stops short of finding that the Bar met the clear and
convincing burden to prove Applicant had any issue related to alcohol
sufficient to deny his application. Ties go to the Applicant under
California law.
The Decision states: Whether an individual is a fit and proper
person to be permitted to practice law usually turns upon whether that
person has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral
turpitude... Applicant's repeated violations of his absolute duty of
frankness and truthfulness132 during the admissions process
demonstrate that he has yet to attain the state of mind necessary to
achieve reformation and regeneration and is little different from the
person who behaved so poorly133 in the past. Judge McElroy stops short
of actually finding Applicant committed any acts of moral turpitude,
then, illogically, attempts to base her Decision on the idea that it seems
likely that Applicant will continue to commit acts of moral turpitude
which she did not find the Bar had proven applicant committed.
The Decision continues on to display that it is at war with itself
in its inability to find that the Bar met its burden to prove Applicant
committed a single act of moral turpitude whilst, nonetheless,
attempting to define the relevant standard as not requiring acts of
moral turpitude. This, where such reads: Furthermore, his evasive
testimony134 regarding his alcohol abuse...the court cannot conclude
that applicant is not likely to continue to commit acts of moral
turpitude. Each act of applicant's misconduct135 is not so serious as to
find him lacking good moral character. But, in examining the
combined record of his multiple acts, particularly his lack of candor
and irrational, combative behavior136 throughout these proceedings, the
court is confronted not by isolated137 or uncharacteristic acts but by a
continuing course of misconduct extending over a period of several
years.
Even if one reads the Decision to find that Applicant committed
some act of moral turpitude, the Decision fails to in any way specify
just what such act was, much less specify any findings of fact
whatsoever to support such a conclusion.
Further, the Decision is clearly at odds with the evidence (and
was issued without the necessary accompanying due process) where it
states: based on the material omissions from and misrepresentations
31
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
on the application, applicant's failure to satisfy his financial

obligations138, his evasive testimony regarding his substance abuse
issues and his erratic, hostile and belligerent behavior at trial, the
court finds that applicant has failed to demonstrate his rehabilitation.
Applicant timely submitted a Request for Review and the
required payment for a transcript. Judge Remke lacked jurisdiction to
fail to order the transcript prepared (as such was not the forum for
litigating the five year rule and ambiguity in Applicant's statements
in his filings ought be resolved in favor of conducting a review,
11
12
13
especially where a check was submitted for transcript costs), and the
Clerk was required to cause such to be prepared under Rule 5.15. Per
14
15
Rule 5.152 this Appellants Brief is timely as the Clerk has to this day
16
still yet to serve the trial transcript. The undersigned respectfully
17
18
19
declares under penalty of perjury that he is indigent with less than

$1,000 to his name, no ownership of any realty, stocks or bond, owning
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
only one vehicle worth less than $2,000, and a monthly income of under
$800, with necessary expenses of at least $500 per month and has
received food stamps at some point in the last twelve months and
respectfully asks this Court to accept the transcript he himself
dutifully prepared from the audio recordings of the trial he obtained
from this Court, especially given that one exhibit consists of the
32
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
transcript from the Informal Conference with the CBX prepared by a

Bar employee and provide the review he seeks of this mater, and permit
3
4
5
this Brief to exceed the page limitations requirement given the

expansiveness of the issues litigated and length of the Decision.
6
7
Respectfully Submitted,
8
9
Dated this October 10th, 2016
10
11
12
/s/ Zachary Coughlin_____

Appellant
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I certify that on October 10th, 2016 I hand delivered a copy of this

document to both the State Bar Court and State Bar of California. Also,
I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of this APPELLANT'S
BRIEF upon the following by hand delivery and or emailing it or
mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the
following addressee:
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
GREGORY PAUL DRESSER, No. 136532
gregory.dresser@calbar.ca.gov
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, No. 104927
donald.steedman@calbar.ca.gov
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Appellant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
Index to Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Transcript of Trial in this matter four hundred and eighty
nine (489) pages
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
1 Exhibit 31.
2 Exhibit 55.
3 Exhibit 56.
4 Exhibit 72, page 27.
5 Exhibit 72, pages 3, 4, 6, 9, 26-27, versus pages 3 and 17.
6 T441:15-442:6,, 470:8-473:20, Pages 64-65 of Exhibit 70
8 Which included a requirement that he attend for one hour each day for 180
days straight an Alcoholics Anonymous or other abstinence-based recovery
activities, among many, many other requirements. This focus on
abstinence echoes the Decisions focus on sobriety. Each skip straight
past consideration of whether abstinence is superior to a harm reduction
model, much less whether abstinence models actually raise rates of suicide,
relapse, and binge drinking, which they do, scientific studies have proven.
Www.orange-papers.com.
9 T4648-9
10The Bar put on no testimony or documentary evidence from anyone with
the CBX, but rather offered unauthenticated double hearsay from the
Director of Moral Character Determinations purporting to relay what she
heard CBX based such alleged recommendation on.
11 T2:15-18.
12T13:2-4.
13T460:6-462:2, 474:8-15, 479:12-481:21, Exhibits 39 (especially pages 15-18,
and 39-39), 40-53, 54, the entirety of the formal hearing transcripts from
Nevada in Exhibit 13 and 14, which the Bar originally provided to the
court, but which have been excised from the official record despite
Applicant offering such into evidence as well), 57, 61, 70, 71, 72 (especially
pages 29-101), T466:16-28, Exhibit 11-12, Exhibit 70, pages 61-74.
14T48, Exhibit 15, 16 (the entirety of what was filed in the pre-trial binders
by the State Bar on 4/10/07, over 130 pages, not just the 2 pages that
remain) 74, 39, 44, 61
15Page 9.
16Exhibit 19
17 The CBX Application in Exhibit 1, page 4 merely indicates one should
state the reasons for leaving if no longer employed and in no way specifies
from whose vantage point such reason should come.
18Exhibit 15, page 63. Here, again, it is improper for the Bar to provide
Judge McElroy many pages of material in exhibits in a filing of 4/10/07,
then for such to disappear from this Court's file. Coughlin offered all
materials in Exhibits that the Bar withdrew. As such, the Bar should be
required to supplement the record here with entirety of the Records of

the Office of Admissions of the State Bar of Nevada; Records of Supreme
Court of Nevada and all other instances of such materials being removed.
Kagan admits to such being 130 pages. One such page was an extreme
display of candor by Applicant (bates stamp pages 40-41 thereof, though
such is not now in the State Bar Court file) wherein Applicants reports
much to the State Bar of Nevada not required of him. See further
evidence of character and rehabilitation at bates 34 of what she be in
Exhibit, a letter from a non-profit director attesting to applicant's
volunteer work.
19T48, Exhibit 15, 74, 39, 3, 32
20 But, that would require making the Bar put on some actual evidence of
that, which it did not. The Bar did not want to subpoena anyone from the
Schuering firm to testify given the cross-examination that would follow
concerning its forcing Applicant to act as a bar tender to the firm on
Friday afternoons, pushing around a mobile mixed drink cart (even after
he reported his DUI arrest to the firm the day after it took place),
something even Dr. Tucker felt worthy of including in his report. Exhibit
71: "He noted that attorneys in this firm drank a lot, and that as an
Associate one of his roles was to serve drinks at their Friday afternoon
meetings."
21 The transcript reveals that alleged hearsay at page 63 of Exhibit 15, the
alleged 2/23/03 letter from Applicant to the NV Bar describing his
termination from the Schuering firm, was not even admitted into
evidence originally and that Applicant preserved a hearsay objection. See
T33, 90.
22T409:19-28, 175-176, 482:1-2, 323:9-11, 397, 456, 475:1-8, 210:3-9, 296, 278:10-13,
356:14-16, 290:19-21, 390, 138-178,178:8-11 (especially prejudicial considering
the salience of the alleged misrepresentations regarding the DUI arrest in
the Decision). Judge McElroy constantly said next question only during
Coughlin's examinations. This, where the Bar put on reams of irrelevant
testimony on unnoticed issues. Such treatment of a pro se applicant,
particularly where the LAP and CBX ran his former attorney Fishkin off,
created a lack of due process. 409:19-28: Judge McElroy: I understand
that, move on. Okay, I'm giving you 15 minutes and then I'm wrapping
this up in terms of your testimony and you. Mr. Coughlin: So, I get 15
minutes but we can take an hour and a half to verify documents from the
DMV? Judge McElroy: yes. Mr. Coughlin: To prove speeding tickets that
didn't even need to be reported? Judge McElroy: That's correct, go ahead.
Extremely one-sided and inconsistent hearsay rulings in this trial

were a common avenue for improperly denying Applicant an opportunity
to put on his case: T306:10-12, 7, 28, 461-462, 467-471, 479, 71, 33, 34, 53, 8890, 132-133 (arrest reports are inadmissible hearsay), 210-211, 249-255, 306,
338, 371, 382-383, 413, 417, 430, 441-443.
As did one-sided and inconsistent relevancy rulings: T8, 175-176, 52, 59,
61, 63, 65, 74, 90, 95, 98, 100-107, 113, 130-133, 139-142, 155-175, 186, 187-206,
211-212, 216-217, 220, 224-227, 230-232, 237, 241-244, 248, 250, 255-257, 279281, 287-292, 315, 318, 327, 341-342, 352-354, 366, 390.
Such is to say nothing of the myriad of instances were Judge McElroy
sua sponte made objections on behalf of the Bar or otherwise provided
assistance to the Bar in putting on its case and engaged in conduct
obstructing Applicant from putting on his or rebutting the Bar's: T379:2225, 175-176, 390:4-9.
Further, Judge McElroy consistently provided misleading statements
to Applicant (T412:26-413:9, 415:5-25, 419:1-28, 469:9-11, 453:25-454:5, 454:1428, 178:8-11, 210:3-9, 296, 475:20-476:11 (especially as to alleged
misrepresentations in Ex. 2 update to CBX regarding alcohol issues and
treatment and characterization of circumstances surrounding DUI arrest
and termination from Schuering law firm) as to what he should focus on
and what she considered to be the pertinent issues in the trial. It was
error that she allowed the Bar to use hours and hours of trial to to put on
evidence as to unpled issues concerning mere conduct at UNLV, speeding
tickets and mere notices of failure to appear Applicant need not have
reported (Exhibit 1, page 12 CBX Application instructions), summary
evictions which resulted in neither judgments, nor defaults on such, and
criminologist testimony that a urine drug screen tested positive for
marijuana (where such could only show use between on and 60 days of the
test, where the Bar's own witness testified use must be within four hours
of the testing to be evidence of one being under the influence).
Beyond that Judge McElroy seems to have admitted she made up her
mind on this case prior to it starting in that she purported to allow
Coughlin to put on bits (T382-390, 405-234) of his own rebuttal to the Bar's
rebuttal of his initial showing of good moral character before she even
technically ruled on whether the Bar met its rebuttal burden and she
allowed Coughlin no cross-examination of himself following his being
subjected to 111 pages of direct-examination by the Bar (and that is over
an above the two hundred pages or so of direct-examination she allowed
the Bar of Applicant in depositions he was ordered to attend. T356:14-16,
381, 403-403, 355:14-28, 124-128.
Judge McElroy permitted the Bar's rebuttal of Applicant's prima face

case (which itself was permitted on 13 pages) to consist of 423 pages in the
transcript and that is in light of the Court refusing Coughlin any crossexamination or re-cross-examination therein of himself. Coughlin was
permitted 37 pages worth of transcript to put on his rebuttal of the Bar's
rebuttal of Applicant's prima face case (which itself was only permitted 13
pages of transcript). 423 compared to 37 is a pretty good depiction of the
ratio of bias Judge McElroy demonstrated throughout this case, not just at
trial. That is about 11 to 1.
23Exhibit 12 (not questioned at all by CBX, nor was such referenced in the
Exhibit 55 letter from Lawson purporting to relay CBX hearsay rationale
for allegedly recommending Applicant's application), T87-90, 487, 419-420,
477, Exhibit 57 page 91, 97. In over 1,000 pages in the file in this matter,
one of the four main rationale for denying Applicant's application is even
vaguely referenced in only about 4 pages. To permit such kitchen sink
pleading, so late in the game, then for Judge McElroy to indicate to
Applicant such was a non-issue, only to make it the clean-up hitter in the
Decision, is error resulting in a deprivation of due process.
24 The Bar fails to explain in any way what was a misrepresentation about
Applicant's explanation of his termination from the Schuering law firm,
nor does it explain what was a misrepresentation in connection with his
substance abuse. This is largely due to the fact that their was no
attribution for the statements Applicant made about the termination at
the Schuering firm in the two letters referenced. Applicant failed to
indicate from whose point of view such statements were coming from, and
the application did not indicate from whose point of view such should
come from either. To find a clear and convincing evidence burden of proof
was met with regard thereto is error and more a testament to how thin the
Bar's case was here and the overall lack of due process to be found in this
matter.
25Exhibit 57 page 91, 97.
26Exhibit 3, page 3.
27Which is not exactly providing an accommodation for the disability
that California law defines alcohol abuse disorder as.
28 Notably, the Decision fails to mention the very Ex. 2 3/19/03 update from
Applicant to the CBX in question references and attaches the Minute
Order sentencing him to attend those very AA meetings. Of course, the
Bar's Kagan excising such materials attached to and referred to in such
letter was an attempt to mislead the court, but these facts were made clear
to the court repeatedly by Applicant.
29
This is plainly not true from a review of the transcript of such
informal conference in Exhibit 12. Further, even if applicant had
admitted to having a history of alcoholism such is not the same thing as
admitting to having a history of alcohol abuse. It is entirely possible to
have never been more than a social drinker and yet have attended many
AA meetings and even consider one's self to be a member of AA, such as
where, as here, Applicant grew up inundated with twelve step ideology
via his father's love of it. This especially after being frozen out by two
different state bars for a nearly two and half years by the time of the
informal conference.
30 Basically, what Judge McElroy is saying is that Applicant (much less his
then attorney Fishkin), whom had just passed three of the supposedly
more difficult bar exams in the country, was too dim to realize statements
made in the 3/19/03 letter were misrepresentations (in the Decision's view)
in comparison to statements made at the informal conference, vis a vis
one's relationship with alcohol and whether they had ever been referred
to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol abuse. Such gives no
credit to the position that applicant simply interprets those terms
differently than she insists he must here by concluding such amounts to a
misrepresentation. Such is further evidence that the Bar did not meet its
burden here.
31
Applicant attended an Informal Conference with the CBX 7/8/04
wherein Debra Murphy Lawson, Mark J. Decastro, and Whitnie C.
Henderson refused to allow Applicant's attorney to speak or participate in
any way. Applicant's attorney Fishkin does not make a single statement on
the quasi-transcript of the proceeding (which was not conducted under oath
and therefore is more clearly not subject to any hearsay exception) created
by the Bar. Applicant made statements in response to the Committee's,
which they demanded be answered prior to any consultation with
applicant's then attorney. Applicant's answers to such questions were made
in reliance upon advice of his then counsel to the extent such counsel's
advice was able to anticipate questions the CBX might ask. How little does
the CBX respect the role of an attorney and the law given such a set up?
Thus, support for any such alleged misrepresentation made by the
Applicant at such conference (Exhibit 12) in view of statements made in the
3/19/03 Ex. 2 update to CBX is lessened by reasonable reliance upon the
advice of then counsel Fishkin that such statements combined did not
equate to a misrepresentation. Applicant was precluded from putting on
such evidence at trial by the overly constrained time limits he was afforded
to put on his rebuttal.
Another example of the CBX, Kagan (whom subpoenaed Fishkin for

the trial), Fishkin, and LAP's complete lack of respect for the attorney client
relationship is found here: "From: Jerome Fishkin
<jerome@fishkinlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:46 PM To: Zach
Coughlin Subject: Re: Documents on 6/22/05 2:24 PM, Zach Coughlin at
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com wrote: ....During our conversation, Ms. Poley said
(and I am not kidding) that she would prefer that you (meaning Jerry
Fishkin) not be involved in this matter, that she not need to have any
contact with you, and that you were responsible for my case dragging on so
long and...Anyway, I'm just keeping you informed because common sense
tells me I should. To which then attorney Fishkin replied: Yeah, well,
sometimes she does that. And it is best if you communicate directly with her.
And common sense indeed says you should keep me informed. Of course
contact me if you have any questions. Most of my clients have felt ok dealing
with her. But her feathers are ruffled. Any time a person does something
different in a bureaucratic setting, you do upset the bureaucrats. Cest la vie.
If she does ask about our communications, tell her that I am your attorney
and our communications are privileged and that you decline to waive the
privilege. Then make a record of her request and her response....".
32 Here the Decision engages in more sua sponte advocacy for the Bar in
referring to the broader term abuse (in an attempt to justify the
subsequent broader order requiring Coughlin to submit to an evaluation
of any substance abuse (which, by the time of trial, morphed into a full on
psychiatric evaluation to consider any sort of substance abuse as well as a
myriad of half baked mental health or illness theories from Dr. Tucker).
Note the Decision mischaracterizing what the Committee indicated
would be evaluated as recovery from abuse rather than recovery from
alcohol abuse and the extent to which Judge McElroy used the
stipulation to have Applicant's recovery from alcohol abuse monitored
to justify requiring Applicant to submit to a complete and open ended
psychiatric evaluation and have the issue of drug use inserted sufficiently
to void any right Applicant had to assert any privilege against testifying
or being subject to medical or psychiatric evaluation as to any issue
whatsoever. It is error to mischaracterize what the Abeyance Stipulation
is limited to.
Note the instances of the Decision inaccurately characterizing the
DUI arrest as a DUI conviction, and failing to specify the conviction as a
dry reckless driving conviction, but rather referring only to some number
in the California Vehicle Code. Such avoids recognition of defensive
collateral estopple.
33Exhibit 1, page 14 reads: "14.5 Have you been diagnosed or treated for a
chemical dependency that would currently interfere with your ability to
practice law" (Checked "No"). "'Currently' does not mean on the day of, or
even in the weeks or months preceding the completion of the application.
Rather it means recently enough so that you believe that the use of drugs
or alcohol may have an ongoing impact on your functioning as an
attorney"
34 Dr. Robert E. Hunter, Ph.D's report in Exhibit 29 (as do the complete
transcripts from Coughlin's admissions hearings before the Nevada
Committee in Exhibits 13 and 14, which are now missing from this Court's
file) further establish that as of May, 21, 2002, Coughlin did not have any
history of alcohol abuse much less of the mystical and vague 1930's
themed spiritual disease commonly referred to as alcoholism. Such
notes he has no...Axis I or II psychiatric or psychological disorder other
than Adjustment Reaction...he shows excellent pre-morbid adjustment and
displays no sign of impairment. Similarly, the reports by treating
physicians and psychologist Ocskay in Exhibit 54, pages 2-4 further
undermine any finding that Coughlin ever demonstrated any alcohol
abuse or alcoholism, much less any marijuana use disorder or any of the
other kitchen sink quasi-diagnosis Dr. Tucker testified to.
Dr. Tucker's bias is demonstrated in his completely one sided and
conclusory takes in his report, including: In September 2005 he entered
the California Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) after more than a year
of delay caused by his resistance to submitting his medical records , and
was eventually terminated by the program in April 2006 for
noncompliance with conditions.
Judge McElroy's Order requiring Applicant to be evaluated
artificially limited the materials Dr. Tucker could be providing by
Applicant as part of his evaluation. Why? Where is Dr. Tucker coming
up with these findings that Applicant was terminated by LAP for
noncompliance with conditions? Why does he conclude the year of
delay was caused by his resistance to submitting his medical records
and not by the lies and misconduct of LAP? Why did his report not
mention in any way whatsoever the extreme misconduct by LAP
Applicant reported to him? Does not Dr. Tucker have a duty to report to
the California State Medical Board the unlicensed practice of medicine by
the LAP Committee? He admitted under cross-examination at trial that
such misconduct was troubling, yet scrubbed such from his evaluation.
See Exhibit 71. T440-445. Regardless, even in his report, at page 2, Dr.
Tucker refused to actually diagnose Coughlin with any substance abuse
disorder, likely given the improper limitations placed on what materials

he could review by Judge McElroy's order. That is like telling a scientist
they can do an experiment but only with a pre determined set of data not
chosen by a uninterested party. He writes that is merely appears, and
does not specify whether he is referring to all diagnostic criteria or just
a few of them. Further, someone with significant chronic pain problems
who lacks medical insurance and the fancy prescription narcotics the rich
get, who uses alcohol as a palliative, does not suggest alcohol abuse
disorder. The fact that Dr. Tucker had Applicant take all these tests, then
admitted the fact that the results of the test did not affect his opinion at
all, indicates the tests were only given for one reasons, to confirm a
predetermined opinion that Dr. Tucker was being paid to provide. T428,
433.
35 The CBX's questioning at the informal conference included the following
exchange, which just so happens to disprove the finding in the Decision that
Coughlin somehow knew he was an alcoholic on January 1, 2002, but,
rather, that his views on the subject changed gradually:
Q Is January 2002 when you stopped denying that you had
a problem or what happened in January 2002 that made you turn
to AA?
Coughlin: Life had just become too painful, too upsetting.
The incidents at the, in the prior six months to that there had
been the incidents at the law school, the arrest at the movie
theater, personal things such as breakups with my girlfriend,
and I just really felt that some changes, some serious changes
were necessary for me to go on. And pretty much has amounted to
a nearly a complete psychic change in me from who I am. It didn't
occur you know like a flash of light. It was more of a educational
variety of just day in and day out of putting in the work and the
time, and having the faith that if I kept working at it I would be
able to become a different person.
The OCTC's Kagan made the following meritless charge in her 12/11/06
Response (which she reiterated at the May 2007 trial in this matter):
C. Applicant's misrepresentation and lack of candor regarding
substance abuse: When reporting the arrest for driving under the influence
of marijuana to the Committee in his letter of March 19, 2003, applicant
failed to disclose that he had a problem with alcohol...By stating that he had
"never been more than a social drinker" when applicant knew he had a
problem with alcohol and was, in fact, a member of Alcoholics Anonymous,
applicant made a misrepresentation ... By not disclosing his substance abuse
problem to the Committee after his arrest for driving under the influence,
applicant demonstrated a lack of candor. Actually, the CBX Application
does not require any such disclosure, so it is misconduct for Kagan to alleged
misconduct on Applicant's part there where she fails to identify any point at
which at which any such substance abuse issue began to currently
interfere with Applicant's ability to practice law.
Coughlin's 2/23/03 letter to the CBX disclosed his 1/23/03 DUI arrest at
a time he was not even required to report such given the matter had not
even been disposed of until he entered a plea agreement on 3/9/03. In
Kagan's world, one is supposed to immediately convict themselves of having
a substance abuse problem the second they are arrested for even this, a most
dubious of DUIs, and immediately report such to her at the State Bar. And
why after the DUI? That is rather arbitrary. Why not before it? Such
illustrates the Bar's own confusion as to when Coughlin knew he had a
substance abuse problem.
36Applicant's 3/19/03 letter in response to the Bar referenced materials
attached to it that reported Coughlin was required to attend 8 AA meetings
per pleading guilty to a dry reckless driving charge.
Such 3/19/03 letter to CBX from Applicant reads: I have not been
referred to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol abuse, nor am I
current enrolled in treatment....I have included my arrest report in this
letter...My January 23, 2003 arrest has recently been ruled on. I pled guilty
to... a reckless driving charge that carries with it no probation. I am
including with this letter a certified copy of the Minute Order indicating
the final disposition of my charge." Such Minute Order included therein
notes Applicant was ordered to attend 8 AA meetings as part of the final
disposition.
37Even the Bar's Pre-Trial Statement, (much less its 12/11/06 Response) fail
to make the allegation that Coughlin misrepresented something by
reporting he was ordered to attend 8 AA meetings while stating that I
have not been referred to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol abuse,
nor am I current enrolled in treatment. It takes an even further leap to
deem the request (that exceeded that required by the 2002 CBX Application's
disclosure requirements) in the CBX's 3/5/03 letter to Coughlin to somehow
make the above a misrepresentation, where such request states the
requested information should list any referrals or rehabilitative programs
in which you have been enrolled for treatment of abuse issues."
Rather, because she knew it would be lying, the Bar's Kagan merely
left the implication that Coughlin failed to report his was ordered to attend
8 AA meetings. Such displays an alarming lack of candor and an attempt to
mislead this Court.

Indeed, by the time of her 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement, at page 4, line
16-19, (in describing such as a material omission) Kagan had further
retreated from even any such implied accusation: "5. Substance Abuse:
Applicant omitted his history of alcohol abuse from the application filed on
September 28, 2002, and did not provide this information to the Committee
until the informal conference on July 8, 2004." Tellingly, Kagan fails to
make the claim that Coughlin committed a material omission as to failing
to report that he was ordered to attend 8 AA meetings. That is, of course,
because Coughlin did report that. Rather, Kagan argues that by Coughlin's
failing to characterize such as a enrollment in a a rehabilitative program,
he made some material misrepresentation. It is logically inconsistent to
charge, much less find the Bar met its burden to prove an omission without
doing the same as to a misrepresentation concerning the same issue.
See Kagan's 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement, page 6, lines 3 to 14,
especially lines 3-5, which read: "Substance Abuse: Applicant misrepresented
his relationship with alcohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the
Committee. Then, compare such to page 4, line 16-19 of Kagan's same PreTrial Statement, (in describing such as a material omission)
38The very 3/19/03 update from Applicant the Decision references reported
to the CBX that Applicant was ordered to attend 8 AA meetings. As does a
letter to CBX from Applicant's then attorney in Exhibit 36. Further, a
referral is plainly a medical term, not akin to being ordered to attend AA
meetings, which are not tantamount to a treatment program, and,
regardless, attending an AA meeting can hardly be considered as being
enrolled in any such thing. How any of this can began to be said to meet a
clear and convincing evidence burden of proof is truly inscrutable. Its
akin to saying a Jackson Pollock painting clearly and convincingly proves
the quadratic formula.
AA meetings are not treatment. Even the Bar admits this in Exhibit
57, page 103:25- 104:7: Q: As of September, 2002, you had not received
treatment for chemical dependency? A: Can you define treatment? Q: Any
treatment regarding-- A If you watch a movie about an alcoholic, is that
treatment? Q No, treatment by a medical provider". So, for the Bar to then
persist at trial in making argument contrary to that is more evidence of the
misconduct committed by Kagan here.
Can one sue anyone for malpractice if such treatment fails to meet a
standard of care? Applicant should not be expected to interpret AA
meetings as treatment, especially given how routinely anyone charged
with a DUI is ordered to attend such.
39 Which, why not finding Coughlin misrepresented when that such alleged
abuse began if not because Dr. Tucker's report was found unreliable or to
fail to actually specify such. Meaning the Decision relies on non-expert
Coughlin's own alleged self diagnosis, which, really was no such thing if one
reads his statements closely.
40There is no indication of why Coughlin attended AA meetings in 2002,
whether it was because he thought he had a history of alcoholism
(whatever that is, its not even a term found in the DSM-IV) or because he
felt pressured to given the unethical and highly hypocritical climate of
admissions committees then dominated by the zealot twelve step members
pushing their plainly religious agenda and concomitant pricey LAP five
year membership (and the docile populace of leveraged attorneys that go
along with it).
Regardless, Coughlin was not then an expert capable of making a
medical diagnosis as to whether he had an alcohol use disorder, much less
a history of alcohol abuse. The trials rulings conveniently allowed
Coughlin testify as an expert when it suited the Bar's agenda, only to refuse
to allow Coughlin to testify on matters (such as the LAP practicing
medicine without a license) that did not. The Decision equates going to AA
meetings as admitting one had a history of alcoholism. That plainly is not
the case. Why no finding that Coughlin's answer to the chemical
dependency section of his 9/28/02 CBX Application was an omission, then?
Did not one need two years of documented sobriety at that time for a
substance abuse issue to no longer be currently interfering with their
ability to practice law? More inconsistencies in the Decision due to it being
based on conjecture rather than proof.
41 T60-65.
42 Exhibits 72, 2, 1, 70 (11-15, 22-24, 41-43, 51-61,
43 See Exhibit 70, page 21-23.
44Exhibit 18.
45 What events? The Decision fails to specify what it means by
events. The Decision merely indicates: In his March 19, 2003 update to
his application, applicant stated: "While I would like to point out that I
was not under the influence of any drug when I was pulled over for
having my seat belt unfastened, I must admit that I had smoked
marijuana in the weeks preceding my arrest. I often wore the same
sweater I was wearing the night I was arrested. I would were [sic] it
almost nightly to avoid turning on the heat in my apartment. The officer
must have smelled marijuana on that sweater from nights when I had
previously smoked marijuana.
Such statements say nothing of whether Applicant felt he passed the

field sobriety tests, but speak only to whether he was under the influence
of any drug. Further, rather than asserting the officer to be lying about
whether he smelled any trace of marijuana, Applicant provided a
plausible explanation for such, if not for the claim that there was a
strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana.
Such supports the retaliatory motive Applicant asserted the officer
had a trial incident to being questioned as to the need to submit to a PAS
alcohol breath test where Applicant felt he had just obviously passed all
other field sobriety tests given, given he was stone cold sober and not
under the influence of any drug. Officer smells a faint smell of
marijuana, does not like Applicant's questioning why a PAS test for
alcohol was indicated upon his easily performing all field sobriety tests,
and Officer knows one will test positive for marijuana use even up to 60
days from last use and chalks up another DUI arrest, though one likely to
be pled out extremely easily by the District Attorney's office given how
thin the evidence is. Applicant accurately describing such arrest does not
amount to a valid reason for denying Applicant a law license.
At the 7/8/04 Informal Conference, Applicant also stated, in response
to questioning concerning the 1/23/03 arrest that led to a dry reckless
driving conviction, that the officer ...arrested me immediately after I
questioned whether I needed to take a breath test for alcohol.
Does the Decision find Applicant was indeed under the influence of
any drug, then, to a clear and convincing evidence standard? It is not
really clear. Even Officer George and criminologist Toms admit such is
not proven by the evidence in this matter. Indeed, Officer George
undertook considerable risk committing misconduct (that Kagan and
others eventually signed up for themselves) in avoiding providing the
required drug admonition and statements in the arrest report as to why
he felt there was a clear indication per VC 23612(a)(2)(C) that requiring
Applicant to submit to more than just a breath test would yield evidence
that Applicant was under the influence of drugs at the time of arrest.
At trial, George admitted that a mere preponderance standard (more
than likely T138) of evidence existed for such. Does that not clash with
the defensive collateral estopple present where the Sacramento Court
accepted a dry reckless driving plea deal?
Further, the Decision fails to indicate just how dramatically Applicant
was unable to perform the field sobriety tests administered. Exhibit 69,
page 7 indicates N/A in response to cannot do test?. In fact, despite
Officer George testifying that the field sobriety tests are not pass fail,
Judge McElroy reduces such to just that, finding Applicant could not
perform any of them, rather than specifying to what degree the evidence
proves Applicant could not sufficiently perform such non-pass or fail
tests. T102-103, 130-136. At one point, Officer George even admitted that
Applicant did perform a field sobriety test. T136.
Also, a thorough review of the arrest report here reveals the computer
like level of digital accuracy Officer George demanded from Applicant in
determining whether they sufficiently performed such tests. A variety of
instances in his report reveal the extent to which his color commentary of
one's performance on such test are completely over the top, even in
relation to his own play by play account of what Applicant's performance
actually was on such test.
This is particularly true where he admits Applicant did not raise his
arms in an attempt to balance himself during either stand on one leg for
30 seconds test incident to the DRE evaluation at the jail (but claims
applicant was raising his arms and teetering during the exact same
tested administered approximately twenty minutes prior) and in relation
to describing subject as having walked in a crooked manner stepping of
the line on step #3 on the return set of nine steps, despite elsewhere
noting that during none of such eighteen steps did Applicant lose the
required heel to toe contact or raise his arms to balance. Such statements
are clearly incongruous.
It is as if there is a war going on within Officer George throughout his
report and testifying. He seems to try to stay close to the facts, step by step
wise (if not as to his description of his explanation of the implied consent
chemical testing laws and presentation of testing options), but when it
comes to describing what those facts mean or amount to, he clearly has an
agenda. Darn it, just did not perform those tests sufficiently or as
directed. Perhaps applicant, whom has very large hands and fingers, did
actually touch somewhere on the middle of his nostril during the finger to
nose test (as George depicts in the diagram at page 8 of Exhibit 69), rather
than on the absolute digital center pixel of the tip of his nose. T136, 152154. But, then there is the matter of whether George just instructed
Applicant to touch his nose with his finger, or to touch the tip of his nose
with the tip of his finger.
Similar to the obfuscation with respect to the implied consent testing
disclosure and presentation of options, the grading Applicant on field
sobriety tests that differ slightly from those described all just announce
an officer whom is competing desperately for most DUI arrests per year
awards and whom did not much like some punk law student even
vaguely shaming him for being so intellectually dishonest in his

evaluation his performance on a variety of field sobriety tests. Sounds
like someone has a guilty conscience and deals with it in the fight or
flight manner of making retaliatory arrests.
46 More internal inconsistency in the Decision. Why no finding that
Coughlin also made misrepresentations during the trial herein when his
testimony was similar to the statements he made in such 3/19/03 Ex. 2
update? Because of the privilege of the participant? T102-104.
47
Again and again, Decision fails to accurately state what charge
Applicant was convicted of. The Minute Order in Exhibit 21, page 15 clearly
defines such as Dry Reckless Driving, Non-alcohol related, no probation.
Such an inaccurate depiction serves to justify the invasive excesses by the
CBX and this Court's orders on Kagan's Motion to Compel Answers at a
deposition and to submit to Dr. Tucker's evaluation to stem therefrom)
alternately refers to such in her Decision as a DUI conviction, or a
Reckless Driving or by referring only to a numerical identifier for the
vehicle code.
48 Why no photograph in such arrest report of either Applicant's allegedly
bloodshot, watery eyes or the green pasty film covering his tongue?
T103-104, 134, 175-176.
49
Officer George would seemingly define only a Cirque du Soleil
performer at the height of their powers as not being a bit unsteady on
their feet (with testing including standing on one foot for 30 seconds at a
time as being done in the dark on the sloped shoulder of the side of the
road as to the pre-arrest testing). T136, 163, Exhibit 69, page 8, during
DRE evaluation post-arrest conducted at jail starting thirty five minutes
after Applicant was pulled over: "WALK AND TURN: On the first set of
nine steps, the subject walked with floppy feet. The subject pivoted on the
heels of both feet on the turns around. He walked in a crooked manner
stepping off line on #3 on the return set of nine steps...
Yet, page 7 of the arrest report indicates Applicant did not raise his
arms in an attempt to balance while performing the 9 steps in a line then
turning around and retracing such 9 steps in the heal to toe test? Nor
during such test does the report indicate was Applicant observed to have
"stopped walking" or "missed heal-toe" meaning the assertion Applicant
"stepped off line" necessarily entailed only his top stepping off the line
with his heel remaining on the line for the 12th step of the test); Page 7
further indicates Applicant did not "put foot down" or "used arms to
balance" while standing on one leg for 30 seconds, while doing so for either
his left or right leg/
Further, in the section of the arrest report detailing the field

sobriety tests administered shortly after pulling applicant over at 2230, prearrest, George notes (Exhibit 69, pages 4-5) that he required such FST's such
as the stand on one leg for 30 seconds test to be performed on the sloped
shoulder of the road. Even then, Applicant did not put his foot down during
the 30 seconds and only used his arms to balance on occasion.
50
The decision misstates Officer George's strong odor of freshly burnt
marijuana to a mere strong odor of marijuana if not as an admission as
to the over the top testifying that George engages in where no pipe, bong,
marijuana cigarette remnants or ash was recovered at the scene, even
incident to a search incident to arrest, and where George suddenly
claimed to smell about applicant's person freshly burnt marijuana on
Applicant's person approximately an hour after the arrest, back at the
jail?
The CBX's Mark Decastro, Esq., while cross-examining a party whose
attorney was being prohibited from saying a word during a proceeding,
misrepresented what was contained in the police report for such arrest in
stating: There's a difference between your smelling like you've been
around smoke and smoke wafting out of your car, so I'm trying to
understand the difference between your story and the officer's story.
There is no reference to smoke wafting out of your car in such police
report. If there was smoke, then why didn't Officer George recover any
paraphernalia? Was it because of the obvious misrepresentations in the
arrest report by the officer, the CBX's Mark Decastro felt compelled to
augment such with some of his own?
51
The relevant peer reviewed studies fail to establish that marijuana
use even impairs driving to any predictable degree.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving/01.php
52
Officer George's outrageous over the top assessment is in line with that
of LAP's Pam Poley's. See hearsay within Exhibit 72 Poley asserting that
Coughlin was somehow out of compliance with nearly every term of his
Participation Plan despite an obsessive level of detail having been
applied in meeting each and every ridiculous demand LAP made.
Officer George notes in Exhibit 69, page 8 "FINGER TO NOSE: The
subject was unable to touch his fingertip to the tip of his nose on six of six
attempts". However, the form on page 7 merely describes such test as
"Finger/Nose" not "fingertip" to "tip of nose" test. Officer George's
credibility is further undermined in the extent to which he judges
Applicant's performance on more specific and exacting field sobriety tests
than the actual tests administered or which Applicant was instructed to
perform.
Further, the "one leg stand' test on page 7 apparently indicates how
many seconds into a 30 second test wherein one is required to stand on
their left, then performed again on their right, leg before they exhibit any
of four indicators ("sways while balancing", "used arms to balance",
"hopping", "put foot down"). George's testimony and analysis is even more
dubious where such means the only of these four Applicant exhibited was
"sways while balancing" 28 and 26 seconds into a 30 second test requiring
one to stand on one foot.
53
Well, actually, Officer George admits in his arrest report that
Applicant passed at least one field sobriety test, the PAS (preliminary
alcohol screening) test he strangely administered post-arrest back at the
jail.
54
This is plainly not true from a review of George's testimony.
55
The Decision here misstates Officer George's testimony. George
actually, incredibly, claimed Applicant could not perform any of the
many field sobriety tests administered prior to arrest. Is the State Bar
of California making it clear they do not want Applicants who decline to
comment on outrageous misrepresentations in police reports, here?
56
T300-301 compared to T138.
57
Rather, the Bar's criminologist testified such test result could show no
more than that one had ingested marijuana between one to three days after
use. If a person is a chronic user then it can be as much as 60 days if they use
it chronically. T304: 20-22.
58
T138. Applicant was prohibited from putting on evidence similar to
the following that undermine the Decision's finding that evidence related
to results of these field sobriety tests could support a finding that the
clear and convincing evidence burden was met. Horizontal Gaze
Nystagmus Test: The National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these tests are 77% reliable.
NHTSA estimates that this test is effective 68% of the time. One Leg
Stand Test. NHTSA estimates that this test is effective 65% of the time.
59 T139:7
60
T138:20-27: 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 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 pasty film.
Further, the pasty green film Officer George purports to have

noticed on Applicant's tongue has become a telltale sign of a police officer
whom is providing very dubious testimony
http://www.grahamlawyerblog.com/2010/03/17/criminal-defenselawyers-challenge-green-tongue-phenomenon-in-drug- dui-cases/
61
T166-169. By the time of trial George had made 3,000 of his own DUI
arrests and participated in some 7,000 others. More questioning could
have narrowed down how many years it took him to do that but objections
were sustained as to how many that is in comparison to average (ie, maybe
he only became involved in DUI arrests in the 11 years he was at the
North Sacramento CHP station, versus the 16 years he had then been an
officer). T129, 141, 157, 161.
62
T129, 134, 137-140, 156-157
63
Also, such arrest report and George's testimony expects the trier of fact
to believe that an allegedly "passive-aggressive" Applicant who (T145 "A:
Actually my recollection of the conversation with you was that you felt
that because you were a law student that I could not prove that you were
under the influence of anything and that you had not been drinking other
than one glass of wine approximately four hours prior to being stopped.").
See, also T147: "Q: Can you tell me why you knew I was in law school? A:
Because you made it very clear that you wanted me to know that, you
stated to me that you were in law school. Q: Do you remember having a
discussion were you were saying: Wow, three years of law school down the
drain, huh? No? You don't 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." However, in the
arrest report in Exhibit 69, page 1, Officer George notes that Applicant
indicated his occupation was lawyer, med malpractice.
Also T155: "Q: At any time throughout the arrest, particularly when
first pulled over, would you say I was argumentative? How would you
describe our interaction on a human level. A: Similar to your behavior
today, I would consider you somewhat argumentative, passive-aggressive
maybe." Also, T156: "Q: Could you give me some situation? A: Sure, like for
example when I asked you where were are you coming from tonight you said
were you coming from. Q: I did? Is that noted in your report? A: No. Q: But
you remember that from how long ago? A: I do." However, the arrest report
lists Applicant's demeanor as cooperative. And one is supposed to believe per
page 7, Exhibit 69 of such report that after being arrested, and back at the
main jail, Applicant waived his rights after being informed of them and
submitted to another round of tests involving his pupils and walking in a
straight line, etc., etc.. Page 7, Exhibit 69 notes "No" as to whether any
witness observed the urine sample being collected. and notes "No" as to
Drug admonition by?.
64
Notice that in his DRE evaluation conducted after the arrest, at the
jail George writes: The subject's clothing smelled strongly of freshly burnt
marijuana." Exhibit 69, page 8. However, such arrest report, at Exhibit 69
pages 4-5 contradicts such. Page 6: "As he spoke, I could smell a strong odor
of burnt marijuana about his person and on his breath." Whereas at page 5
such arrest report reads: "...I could smell a strong odor of freshly burnt
marijuana inside the vehicle". Somewhere between pulling Applicant over,
and waiting 30 minutes to smell him again at the jail, the smell about
Applicant went from merely being of burnt marijuana to freshly burnt
marijuana.
However, Officer George's "Drug Recognition Evaluation" on Page 7 of
Exhibit 69, notes a time of 2307 for administration of a "breath test" incident
to a post-arrest DRE evaluation at the jail. The booking time at the jail is
listed as 2350. Sometime between 2305 and 2350 (page 4 Exhibit 69 lists 2350
as the time of a urine sample being collected) Officer George claimed to still
smell "burnt marijuana" about Applicant's person (but suddenly such had
become freshly burnt in comparison to the statements concerning the
smell upon pulling Applicant over), as he claimed to have also smelled such
at the time of pulling Applicant over, listed as 2230 (and note no marijuana
or paraphernalia was recovered incident to a search incident to arrest of
Applicant's vehicle).
65
(keen on letting the officer know he was a law student with theories
on why George could not prove that necessary for a DUI conviction, where
George admits he, at not time, suspected Applicant of being under the
influence of alcohol)
66
Exhibit 69, page 6, George writes: "I explained section 23612 VC
(Implied Consent) to Coughlin. He chose and submitted to a urine test."
67
T144-145.
68
Further, George's own report characterizes the use of a preliminary
alcohol screening device (administered post-arrest, no less, in a highly
unusual move) while admitting the required P.A.S. Admonition was not
provided to Applicant. (https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-pas-beadministered-post-arrest--443429.html )
T150-151: "Q: So, you take a test from a preliminary alcohol screening
device? A: That is a field sobriety tests to further assist me in determining
whether or not you're under the influence of alcohol? Q: Does it give you a
reading? A: It does give a reading. Q: Like a .08 or below or under that
kind of thing? A: We're talking again hypothetically because this doesn'tnone of this applies in your case you were not offered that test because I
at no time did I suspect you were under the influence of alcohol. Q: But at
some point I took that test, right? A: You did as part of the procedure for
the drug evaluation, the part of that procedure is to rule out alcohol as an
intoxicant. Q: But you wouldn't do that at the scene? A: Correct. Q: But you
did it later? A: Correct, because it's one of the process, it's part of the
process for the drug evaluation. I knew that you were going to come back
zero. You were not suspected of being under the influence of alcohol.
That's part of the procedure at that time to take that test ."
However, elsewhere in his testimony Officer George admitted
administering a PAS is not standard procedure in all DUI arrests. T148149: "Q: And if I wasn't given a breath test? Wouldn't that be standard for
a DUI to test for a breath test? A: No."
A PAS is a voluntary test, unlike the three implied consent tests one is
required to choose from post-arrest (be careful not to confuse a PAS,
handheld device breath test with the chemical, desktop breath test
required be offered one along with urine and blood among the three
testing method choices post-arrest). One can refuse to take as PAS breath
test due to the fact that they are not viewed as reliable as desktop
chemical breath tests and are admissible on for the purposes of proving
probable cause to arrest, not for proving blood alcohol levels .
George's testimony that Applicant was not offered such test implies
Applicant was required to take such PAS breath test when such was
administered post-arrest. Such further underscores the weaknesses in
Georges testimony where he admits to failing to have the required drug
admonition provided to Applicant prior to requiring Applicant to submit
to a blood or urine test, and in his failing to document in his arrest report
upon what he felt there was a clear indication that requiring such
additional test would yield evidence of drug intoxication. Regardless,
George admits in his report to failing to administer the required drug
admonition prior to the urine test and failing to administer the required
PAS admonition prior to the PAS test.
T143. The arrest report and testimony by both Applicant and Officer
George establish that George wrongfully skipped the requirements of VC
23612(a)(2)(C) to 1) state the facts upon which that belief that the person
was driving under the influence of a drug is is based, and, 2) state the facts
upon which there is a clear indication that a blood or urine test will
reveal evidence of the person being under the influence is based.

Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) Test: A Preliminary Alcohol
Screening (PAS) Device is a handheld instrument used to test a breath
sample for alcohol in the field. Existing law allows an officer to ask an
individual to take a PAS test as part of the investigatory process. The test
is meant to be used as a test to assist the officer in making a
determination if probable cause exists to arrest a person was driving
under the influence of alcohol, or alcohol and drugs. (Veh. Code, 23612,
subd. (h).)
69
Applicant was prevented by the Court from putting on evidence such
as the following, which impeaches George's credibility in that it helps
establish George misrepresented the events surrounding his 1)
purportedly informing Applicant of California's implied consent law vis a
vis drug testing incident to a DUI arrest and 2) presenting Applicant,
post-arrest, with his choice of taking one of three tests, and 3) applicant's
responses to such presentation. In addition to such is Officer George's
failure to comply with California law in not including in his report facts
supporting his belief that there was a clear indication that requiring an
additional test beyond a breath test from Applicant would yield
evidence that Applicant had been drug impaired at the time of arrest.
Further, all of Applicant's statements during the trial were sworn
testimony, and, as such, he testified that Officer George did not offer a
choice of taking a breath test. T4, 306, 405, 466. This, the State Bar did not
rebut with any testimony from the witness to these events, Officer Amy
Escatel, which Applicant pointed out at trial. T178.
T144-145: "Q: Okay, do you recall saying to me after I asked you why
you wanted me to take a blow test, saying you can do it or you can not do
it, but if you refuse to take this blow test I'll just arrest you and then you
have to go to the station and take a urine or a blood ? A: No." Such is also
evidence of an impermissible use of one's invoking their rights (such as
the right not to take a voluntary PAS test) as evidence of guilt or a basis
for retaliation.
Also, at Exhibit 69, page 6, George writes: "I explained section 23612 VC
(Implied Consent) to Coughlin. He chose and submitted to a urine test."
Officer George's himself admits in his arrest report that he did not
have the required drug admonition done prior to subjecting Applicant to
either a urine or blood test. Exhibit 69, page 7.
It is completely implausible that Applicant would not choose to take a
breath test as one of the three choices, especially given his B.S., in Biology
and the incredibly common knowledge in 2003 that breath tests are not
able to identify the presence of marijuana.

See arrest report in Exhibit 69, page 4: PRELIMINARY ALCOHOL
SCREEN INFORMATION P.A.S. Admonition: I am requesting that you
take a preliminary alcohol screening test to further assist me in
determining whether you are under the influence of alcohol. You may
refuse to take this test, however, this is not an implied consent test and if
arrested, you will be required to give a sample your blood, breath, or
urine for the purpose of determining the actual alcoholic content of your
blood. The above statement was read to the subject by (George checked the
box for "N/A")". However, his own arrest report admits that a P.A.S., or
preliminary alcohol screening test was administered at 2307. Such page
fails to input the results of such PAS test, curiously.
Further, such reads: "Chemical Test Information (George checked the
box for "Implied Consent Admonishment, 23612 V.C.") Drug
Admonishment (George checked the box for "Yes", Type of Test (George
checked the box for "Urine" with a time of 2350 ( out of a choice of "breath,
blood, or urine") and such contains no notations under "Disposition of
Samples" Such indicates Officer George administered the test and took
the sample himself at the Sacramento Main Jail. Page 5, Exhibit 21.
There is nothing in the arrest report or anything other than Officer
Georges trial testimony in the way of a signature from Applicant (or
indication that Applicant was asked to provide any signature)
acknowledging that he was permitted to read pages 4 and 5 of the arrest
report, which purport to inform Applicant of his right to choose between
one of three tests (blood, breath, or urine).
George's arrest report indicates: I explained section 23612 VC (Implied
Consent) to Coughlin. He chose and submitted to a urine test. I collected a
urine sample at 2350 hours. The implausibility between George's
testimony regarding what he informed Applicant of vis a vis the implied
consent laws and choice of testing and Applicant's responses thereto,
combined with the admissions by George in his report that he no one
provided the required drug admonition and that he did not provide the
required P.A.S. Admonition despite a PAS being administered, and
George's failure to comply with the requirement that his report identify
additional facts to support finding there was a clear indication an
additional test would yield evidence of drug intoxication, all add up to
the Bar's burden not being met here.
California law in 2003 provided under VC 23612(a)(2)(B) that a person
who is lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of a drug has a
choice of whether a chemical test to determine his or her drug level shall
be a blood, breath, or urine test. Officer George did not offer Applicant a
choice of the three, rather he presented Applicant with a choice between
only two, blood or urine, to get around the onerous requirements of VC
23612(a)(2)(C)'s requiring that a "person who chooses to submit to a breath
test may also be requested to submit to a blood or urine test if the officer
has reasonable cause to believe that the person was driving under the
influence of a drug and if the officer has a clear indication that a blood or
urine test will reveal evidence of the person being under the influence .
The officer shall state in his or her report the facts upon which that belief
and that clear indication are based.
Officer George clearly did not want to provide anything in his arrest
report to show such a clear indication that a urine test would reveal
evidence of the person being under the influence. Obviously, given the
two pronged nature of such code section, a clear indication is something
beyond the mere probable cause to arrest enunciated in prong one thereof.
The following demonstrate that there was no clear indication that
requiring Applicant to take an additional test beyond a breath test
would provide evidence that Applicant was under the influence of
marijuana (or any other drug):
1) there was no citation given for any moving violation or erratic
driving, 2) the pull over was based on something as minor as an alleged
seat belt violation, ie, there was no auto accident, 3) arrestee's speech is
listed as clear and his appearance clean, 4) there is no photograph
accompanying the arrest report to corroborate the ridiculous assertion
therein that marijuana smoking had caused Applicant's tongue to have a
green pasty film covering it, 5) much less to show Applicant had
bloodshot, watery eyes,
6) there was no paraphernalia or drugs found in Applicant's vehicle (or
ashes, etc.), 7) no smoke was mentioned as wafting out of the vehicle's
windows, 6) no positive PAS was recorded prior to arrest, 7) the fact that
PAS was given post-arrest nonsensically, and came back negative for
alcohol makes the entire arrest fishy, 8) that Applicant was not even
questioned regarding whether he had recently ingested marijuana (though,
oddly, at T155, George admits, as shown in his arrest report, that he
questioned Applicant as to whether he had had any alcohol that night), 9)
Applicant was not questioned as to whether he had recently been around
others burning marijuana (ie, George failed to rule out whether such alleged
smell was second hand smoke or why his report notes an strong odor of
freshly burnt marijuana only inside Applicant's vehicle, while only noting
an odor of mere burnt marijuana about Applicant's person), 10) the utter
lack of any statement or corroboration from Officer Amy Escatel, whom is

listed as a witness in the arrest report, which indicates she was present
throughout the stop, arrest, and subsequent DRE evaluation.
All the above factors mean there was far from any clear indication
that such additional testing would yield evidence of drug intoxication.
Obviously Officer George got upset upon Applicant asking why a PAS
would be necessary after he easily performed all the field sobriety tests so
far administered and George skipped straight to retaliation and filed this
sloppy, inconsistent, shortcut filled arrest report that screams retaliation
rather than some measured analysis by a drug recognition evaluator with
so much training and experience),
T178: "Judge McElroy: Okay, I am not allowing any more questions in
this area, this is, it's over with in terms of this area. So do you have any of
redirect? Ms. Kagan: No, Your Honor. Mr. Coughlin: Is there a reason why
we didn't call Officer Escatel? Judge McElroy: No, we don't need an
explanation. She can put on her case as she wishes."
Compare that to
T446: "Mr. Coughlin: I wish to show the relevance for this- Judge McElroy:
You need to call the LAP people as your witnesses and cross-examine them
or put them on direct... They are experts in the issue of whether you have
been terminated from LAP and that is an issue here, but Dr. Tucker doesn't
know, other than the fact that you have been terminated. Mr. Coughlin: So
it is whether or not, or is it why I was terminated? Judge McElroy: Why?
Whether? Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so is this going to why? Judge McElroy: Don't
argue with me. Ask the next question."
This entire five year plus ordeal left Applicant as floored as your
typical abuse victim and he called only two witnesses (though Judge
McElroy did artificially curtail his ability to put on evidence), while the
Bar called many and offered over seventy exhibits, so the Bar's massive fund
of resources here makes it awfully fishy that it did not put on any testimony
from Officer Amy Escatel. Likewise, Judge McElroy's blase dismissal of the
idea of hearing from eye witness Officer Escatel on an issue she would
ultimately make one of the main basis for her Decision.
What all the above does support, though, is the retaliatory motive
angle Applicant put on evidence of at trial, wherein Officer George grew
upset about being questioned as to why Applicant need take a PAS test
where he was obviously stone cold sober and easily passed all the field
sobriety tests. T146, and within Exhibit 12. Which further undermines the
testimony that he failed such field sobriety tests. See T144-145 as well.
Page 7 of Exhibit 69, Officer George admits to violating California law
in failing to read the drug admonition required upon an officer ordering
an arrestee to take a second test (the post-arrest PAS test qualifies as a

breath test). The arresting officer must, in the criminal investigation
report, articulate the clear indication that a blood or urine test will reveal
evidence of his/her being under the influence of drugs.
http://www.mendocinocountyduilawyer.com/pdf/DS367.pdf
Per his testimony at trial that there was merely a preponderance of
evidence that Applicant has ingested marijuana within four hours prior to
arrest, Officer George himself admits the standard required in VC 23612(a)
(2)(C) was not met, therefore demonstrating motive for Officer George to
unlawfully avoid the requirement to 1) state the facts upon which that
belief that the person was driving under the influence of a drug is is based,
and, 2) state the facts upon which that clear indication that a blood or
urine test will reveal evidence of the person being under the influence is
based.
George's avoidance of the statement requirements under VC 23612(a)(2)
(C) must be viewed in the context of criminologist Tom's testimony
regarding the inability of the results of such test to determine more than
one had ingested marijuana between one and 60 days prior to the arrest (ie,
not capable of determining whether ingested within the four hour window
of arrest that Officer George admitted such must be ingested to cause one to
be under the influence of marijuana).
On page 7 of Exhibit 69, Officer George indicates "No" in response to
the question "Drug admonition by?". So, right there, Officer George admits
to not complying with the requirements of VC 23612(a)(2)(C)' that "The
officer shall advise the person that he or she is required to submit to an
additional test." Also on page 7 of Exhibit 69 in response to a section
prompting Officer George to list a "DRE#" such is left blank. There is no
evidence in the record that Officer George was then currently certified as a
DRE at the time this evaluation was conducted, and, no box is checked
under "opinion of evaluator".
"One of the key factors when dealing with a DUI that does not involve
alcohol is that in almost every case, the police are required to continue
their DUI investigation only with a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). Not
every officer has DRE qualifications and in fact the majority of police
officers do NOT. That means if a regular DUI officer is asking you to take
a breath test and you blow 0.00, they do NOT have the right to ask for a
urine test. The police can arrest you only if they suspect you have been
driving while impaired by alcohol OR by controlled substances. It is
routine for officers to ask for urine after a low breath test, because they
figure something must be wrong with this driver in order to justify their
arrest. Fact is, they can not do this unless they are DRE."
http://www.helpgoodpeople.com/dui-involving-marijuana-cocaine-orpills.html Officer George's DRE evaluation curiously leaves blank the
space calling for his DRE#.
Officer George's absurd testimony continues in comparing his
statements that Applicant could not touch the tip of his nose in six of six
attempts when considering the lines drawn on Page 7, Exhibit 69 that
purport to show where Applicant touched on his face in relation to his
nose. All six lines are just slightly away from what would be the absolute
center pixel of a picture of the face drawing shown on page 7. Officer
George insists on a computer like digital level of accuracy from those he
subjects to his FST's and DRE tests.
Consider also, T143: "A: Yes, after you were arrested, I explained to you
the implied consent law in the state of California which requires you to
submit to a blood, breath, or urine test." Officer George really expects the
fact finder to believe he offered Applicant the choice of a breath test and
the Applicant chose a urine test instead when all he tested positive for
was marijuana and the prescription hydrocodone? Really? Such is an
awfully convenient and improbable (and contrary to Applicant's
testimony) excuse for why Officer George did not comply with the
statement requirements in VC 23612(a)(2)(C). Especially viewed in the
context of his allegedly and very improbably administering a
"preliminary alcohol screening device" "field sobriety test" not in the field,
but at the jail, not as a preliminary measure, but post-arrest, to an
arrestee whom George claimed was mouthy about being a "law student"
with rights and stuff whom allegedly freely consented to such? Right.
And preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) tests are optional under
California law, as opposed to post-arrest chemical alcohol breath tests.
T144: "Q: Okay, do you recall saying to me after I asked you why you
wanted me to take a blow test saying you can do it or you cannot do it but
if you refuse to take this blow tests I'll just arrest you and then you have
to go to the station and take a urine or a blood? A: No."
70
Just what that is, is not entirely clear, ie, which statements in the Ex.
2 update to CBX does the Decision take issue with? In what sense does the
Decision view the phrase under the influence in such 3/19/03 update to
CBX? In a sense that under the influence is something less than
intoxicated? The intrastate confusion surrounding the various
terminology used to describe driving while intoxicated versus driving
under the influence only further illustrates the lack of proof here to
support the clear and convincing burden of proof to show a
misrepresentation was met)

71
George (keen to cleanse his report and testimony of any evidence of his
retaliatory motive) originally denies any conversation about a breath test
pre-arrest, then references Applicant claiming to be a law student (T145147) and proclaiming his entitlement in a discussion related to taking a
breath test. All this, despite noting Applicant as cooperative in the
report (and the speech of one whom allegedly had an inability to
performall field sobriety tests was listed as clear), which is all the more
incongruous to George's testimony that Applicant answered his where
are you headed, tonight? question with where are you headed? (T156)).
What the arrest report and George's testimony is clearly missing is an
explanation of how this pull over went from asking if Applicant had
anything to drink that night to requiring a blood or urine test with no
intervening questioning as to whether Applicant had done any drugs. The
the officer was mad when Applicant questioned the necessity of a PAS
test after easily performing the field sobriety tests, and only grew more
upset after questioning Applicant as to what his occupation was and
finding out Applicant was a law student, so he retaliated by arresting an
obviously sober Applicant whose clothes smelled faintly of past
marijuana use angle sure sounds a lot more plausible than what Officer
George is alleging occurred.
Officer George purports to have remembered such detail five years
after the fact among the 3,000 DUI arrests he made himself (T129) or the
7,000 DUI arrests he has been a part of, yet he could not remember if he
was the officer driving the car prior to pulling Applicant over for a seatbelt violation? Further, one news report shows Officer George credited
with 62 DUI arrest in one year (one of the years he was recognized by
MADD): http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2009/03/chp-officersdu.html
So, his claim that he had made 3,000 DUI arrests (which Judge
McElroy found so compelling (T157) seems highly implausible, or at least
evidence of an inordinately aggressive and suspect approach to making
DUI arrests. 60 times the 16 George testified to have been a highway
patrol officer would amount to 636 DUI arrests, and George's testimony
seemed to indicate he may have only been in a position to give such arrests
for 11, not 16 years. T169. If it is 3,000 arrests divided by 16 years, that is
182 or so arrests a year. If it is 3,000 arrest divided by 11 years, that is
more like 272 a year.
Regardless, that would mean George had been,
year in year out, making around at least 182 DUI arrests a year. That is
ten more than the top enforcer noted in that news clipping on George
and his co-workers. So, Officer George averaged ten more DUI arrests per
year than the guy with markedly more DUI arrests than the officer
making the second most DUI arrests for that region in 2008?
That is, like, being the Babe Ruth (or Hank Aaron) of DUI arrests in
Sacramento. Why the drop off to a rather pedestrian 62 DUI arrests in
2008? Which, by the way, still got him recognized by MADD that year,
among a select group of officers, including his partner Officer Amy
Escatel, whom made 66 DUI Arrests. The high arrests totals per officer in
such report rank as follows: 174, 121, 106, 95, 86, 79, 73, 69, 66, 62, and on
down to a low of 25 for all 30 officers so honored by MADD, per a CHP
news release referenced therein.
Maybe the following encouraged Officer George to ease up a bit:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/05/18/former-sacramento-policeofficer-arrested-for-lying-about-arrests/ (DUI arrests).
72
T134, 157-159
73
The Decision here seems to confuse a breath alcohol test (BAC) for a
urine test for marijuana. They are not the same. The BAC tests for the then
present concentration of alcohol in one's system. The urine test here merely
shows whether someone has had marijuana in their system at some point in
between the last 1 to 60 days. T297-305. This was not the gotcha moment the
Decision seems to take it for. Applicant provided the CBX the very police
report the court points to as evidence of Applicant making a
misrepresentation here given such contains the results of the urine test.
Applicant knew the report contained the positive marijuana urine test
when he provided it to the CBX. The court seems to believe Applicant sent
his letter of 3/19/03 to the CBX and then, at some later time the CBX
tracked down the police report, and, gotcha, a positive urine test for
marijuana somehow conclusively proves the assertions in Applicant's
3/19/03 update to the CBX that he was not under the influence of any drug
at the time of the DUI arrest to be misrepresentations. Such is plainly not
the case.
How such is not tantamount to a he said she said, especially given the
numerous inconsistencies and illogical version of events by Officer George,
is inscrutable. Further, Applicant's admitting to having smoked marijuana
in the weeks preceding the arrest, besides evincing candor, character, and
transparency, explains a positive drug test, one that merely indicates
whether one has had marijuana in their system at any time in the preceding
one to sixty days.
The Bar offered no evidence as to the levels of THC found the the urine
sample to support a conclusion that Applicant was impaired, much less
under the influence at the time of arrest. This, even where the Bar
certainly could have afforded such given it flew a police officer up from Las
Vegas to San Francisco to testify about a misdemeanor arrest that was six
years old that was dismissed, and which Applicant reported, despite not
being required to, and where in such report Applicant admitted to
something he was not even charged with (entering the movie theater
without paying). Further, drug recognition evaluator Officer George made
no indication of noticing any impairment or symptoms of Applicant being
under the influence of the narcotic pain medication he was then prescribed,
and the report and testimony's assertion respecting marijuana dilating the
pupils is certainly undermined by the positive test for a narcotic
prescription medications, which George was forced to admit makes pupil's
constrict, not dilate.
74 Officer George's police report comically indicates that Applicant was
unable to touch the tip of his nose on six consecutive attempts, yet was
somehow able to walk nine steps in a row on a straight line? Exhibit 69.
This despite all the outlandish assertions of Applicant swaying in all
directions (both on one foot and on two)? If one is swaying in all directions
standing on two feet, would they not fall over attempting to stand on one
foot? Such report does not indicate Applicant ever fell over at any point.
Further, the report notes Applicant did not use his arms to balance. The
notation that Applicant was wearing contacts and performing legal work as
a litigation associate could explain bloodshot and watery eyes. Applicant's
eyelids were listed as normal rather than the droopy box that would be
more consistent with the extreme stoned-ness George described at trial. In
taking 18 steps in a line, George notes Applicant did not miss the heel-toe
connection at any point. George then failed to check any box under opinion
of the evaluator despite ones for which marijuana use would fall.
Report notes having Applicant take a balancing test on a road's sloped
shoulder with patrol car lights and a flashlight being applied to
someone whom indicated he was being treated with a low dose (10 mg of
hydrocodone) of narcotic pain medication for chronic back pain. George
claimed to have noticed Applicant was not wearing his seat belt as he drove
by Applicant perpendicularly while Applicant was stopped at a stoplight at
10:20 pm at night. Strangely, despite all this alleged swaying and inability
to touch his one nose on six of six attempts, George fails to indicate any
erratic driving by Applicant in his recounting following Applicant's
driving. Later in the boilerplate report by Officer George he slips up and
includes as a basis in making the arrest something purportedly amiss in
Applicant's driving: Based on his driving, his objective symptoms of drug
use/influence, and the field sobriety tests, I formed the opinion that
Applicant was under the influence of drugs and unable to e safely operate a
motor vehicle.
75
Anything communicated to LAP, combined with the Authorization for
Disclosure and Release of Information signed in the September 2002
applicant (much less in subsequent similar documents) and the agency
relationship the CBX has with LAP make anything communicated to
LAP tantamount to an update to the CBX.
76 See proof of the withdrawal of such notices in Exhibit 64, pages 8 to 10,
etc. Another example of Kagan's vexatious approach, replete with
meritless claims.
77(which is not clear given Applicant complied with the requirements in the
2002 Application for providing access to his DMV records)
78T3:3-6
79 T417, 418. It was error to refuse to allow Coughlin to put on evidence
undermining the legitimacy of the alleged smalls claim judgment in the
Uni-shippers case. Where defensive collateral estopple was denied
Coughlin as to the DUI allegations, UNLV allegations, 2001 Las Vegas
theater arrest allegations, etc., it should not have been granted the Bar at
to the alleged judgment to Uni-shippers. The record demonstrates
Coughlin had a very meager existence throughout 2004 and Uni-Shippers
expects one to believe that it gave Coughlin a $7,000 line of credit to print
shipping labels that were not even used? Further, there are notice and
service deficiencies clear from even a cursory review of the materials in
Exhibit 60.
80T306, 404, 413-414, 467
81
Kagan similarly made a misrepresentation with respect to her
allegations that Applicant did not update the Bar as to his employment
and termination from Hale Lane. Releases allowing the LAP to report to
CBX (and the agency relationship between the two entities) do not work
only to the CBX's favor. Further, Applicant informed his then attorney
Fishkin of his employment at Hale Lane in August 2005, and attorney
Fishkin (whom Kagan subpoenaed and communicated with extensively
prior to trail) informed applicant he would communicate such to CBX.
CBX ought be required to disclose Applicant's entire file to him for these
exculpatory purposes but has refused and Fishkin did not maintain
records of Applicant's file.
Kagan's Response, which she stood behind even at the May 2007 trial,
goes on to allege Applicant failed to update the CBX at to having the Jones
Street address despite such being on letterheads in a letter of 4/7/06 from

LAP to Applicant in Exhibit 6 (see also LAP Poley letter to Applicant in
Exhibit 72, page 20 of 9/19/05 and 7/25/05, page 24, and see Applicant's
letterhead in correspondence with the Bar's agent, LAP's Poley in Exhibit
39, page 29, of 12/27/04 with the Jones St. address atop thereof). By the way,
why is the 12/27/04 letter from Applicant to the LAP's Poley and the
enclosures it references therein not among that the Bar purported to be
Documents from Lawyer Assistance Program in Exhibit 72. This is a
deliberate attempt to mislead the court either by LAP or Kagan or both and
Applicant requests a show cause hearing on this an other matters related to
Kagan and LAP's misconduct.
The Bar admitted at trial that Applicant provided it an updated
Authorization and Release for Disclosure of Information for LAP matters in
April 2007, yet the Bar failed to put on any evidence in support of its
meritless contention that Applicant was terminated from LAP for failing to
comply with some agreement with either CBX or LAP (and the Abeyance
Agreement specifies what Kagan did put into evidence was inadmissible).
See the Bar's 12/11/06 Response, page 6, line 9-12: "As part of the
investigation into applicant's moral character, counsel for the Committee
has made several requests for a new LAP authorization form in order to
investigate the circumstances surrounding applicant's termination from
LAP. Applicant has failed to provide the requested LAP authorization
form. Despite being provide such an updated release in April 2007, the Bar
claimed that Applicant had been terminated from LAP for some violation of
an agreement, only to fail to put on any evidence in support of such
vexatious, meritless, and prejudicial accusation.
The Bar's 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement alleges a lack of candor where
Applicant cites the Bar's policy as relayed in the instructions to the
September 28, 2002 Application for Admission in asserting privileges
against being forced to answer for arrests not leading to convictions and
academic charges not leading to discipline.
At trial, Applicant apparently set precedent in establishing his prima
facie showing of character via his testimony and the Bar's exhibits alone.
Previously, such had been met by testimonials from as few as two witnesses
in addition to the testimony of the applicant. (See, e.g., Hall v. Committee if
Bar Examiners (1979) 25 Ca1. 3D 730, 734-735.)
Applicant testified that the following demonstrated he then possessed
good character: Applicant testified further that the alleged omissions on
his application to the State Bar were minor as compared to what he did
disclose and or admit.
82
T330-341, 6, 9-10, 309-311, 369, 406-409, 441, 441-458, 461-483; Exhibit 57,
pages 39-43, 128, Exhibit 70, 21, 61-72.
On July 13, 2004 CBX offered Applicant an Abeyance Agreement
(signed by Applicant on 7/19/04) to last for six months until January 13,
2005, wherein Applicant agreed to allow the CBX to evaluate his recovery
from alcohol abuse, which agreed to allow Applicant's recovery from
alcohol abuse to be monitored by an agent of the Lawyer Assistance
Program.
"That Zachary Barker Coughlin agrees to the terms of the abeyance
stipulation as specified in the Abeyance Policy attached and incorporated as
part of this stipulation" Exhibit X contains no such referenced "Abeyance
Policy". Such goes on "Failure to comply with the terms of the abeyance
stipulation is admissible in moral character proceedings in the State Bar
Court". It concludes: "This stipulation contains the whole of the agreement
between the Committee and the applicant." The CBX obviously did not feel
it was ethical to testify to the misrepresentations that Kagan offered at
trial, and that is why Kagan failed to get such documents from CBX
authenticated at trial or call any CBX witnesses.
The CBX subsequently coerced Applicant into releasing all his
medicals records (including, strangely, any information related to sexually
transmitted diseases per LAP's form release, which was in no way identified
or described in the Abeyance Agreement).
The stipulation stated that applicant "authorizes the Committee to
release to the LAP all materials submitted in connection with the
application. Further, Zachary Barker Coughlin must sign a "Waiver of
Confidentiality and Release of Information" to allow the agent to report the
evaluation and findings to the Committee".
Applicant's signing such Abeyance Agreement in no way amounted
agreeing to sign all the blanket illegal releases and agreements the LAP
subsequently demanded, which included an authorization allowing LAP to
practice medicine without a license and just, in general, violate any right to
privacy an applicant might have. See Exhibit 72.
LAP misrepresented to the CBX in transmitting a form (which it did
not served on Applicant or his then attorney) claiming that Applicant only
completed the telephone intake process on June 22, 2005, in retaliation for
Applicant implying that LAP may be violating his rights. LAP attempted
to drag out the six month abeyance term as long as possible, and arguably
succeeded in doing so for approximately two years. See Exhibit 72 page 27, a
LAP form admitting receipt of a Signed Release of Info on 1/12/05 and a
Date of Initial Contact of 9/21/04.
In fact, Exhibit 72 shows the telephone intake process and other

initial contacts and processing with the LAP was completed close in time to
the 7/19/04 start of the six month abeyance term (see page 3, thereof, noting
LAP performed telephone intake on 9/21/04, and further on 10/4/04).
Applicant in no way agreed to allow LAP to go through his medical records
and demand he stop taking medications prescribed by licensed physicians.
Yet, that is exactly what LAP did, and well after the 1/15/05 expiration of
the six month abeyance term, LAP attempted to mislead the CBX, in a
4/7/06 letter to CBX, into thinking it had terminated Applicant from its
program due to some unspecified failure to comply with the terms of some
agreement with LAP.
Letters from Applicant's then attorney Fishkin in Exhibits 39-40
establish that even licensed California attorney Fishkin believed the
abeyance term was to end on 1/15/05.
At the September 2005 meeting in Sacramento with LAP's Dr. Craig
Douglas Weiner, MD, Nancy Otterness, Ph.D., Janis R. Thibault, MFT,
CADC, and Pam Poley, MFT, CADC, such Committee informed Applicant
that a number of them were members of twelve step groups and did not
consider Applicant to be sober given the medications he was then taking
under prescriptions from licensed physicians. Judge McElroy's Decision
strangely fails to mention this meeting.
83
How exactly did this hearsay and double hearsay get admitted into
evidence (authenticated or not) where similar documents were
consistently ruled hearsay? Basically, anything that helps the State Bar's
case is not hearsay, to Judge McElroy, and anything that helps
Applicant's case is inherently unreliable hearsay: T306:10-12, 7, 28, 461462, 467-471, 479, 71, 33, 34, 53, 88-90, 132-133 (arrest reports are
inadmissible hearsay), 210-211, 249-255, 306, 338, 371, 382-383, 413, 417, 430,
441-443.
84
T453:25-454:5: "Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, can you see where it is
problematic to 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 abuse- Judge McElroy: Well, if you had
complied with the program, we wouldn't even be here, okay?"
85
Note that the CBX, just like its agent the LAP, either purport to
recommend the denial of his application for a law license based on some
alleged failure to satisfy the terms of his Abeyance agreement with the
Committee (Exhibit 55 from CBX) or, in LAP's tip toe around even
asserting Applicant was terminated as a result of any failure to satisfy
the term of any agreement, much less as a result of some failure to follow
mere recommendations.
LAP's letter to Applicant and the CBX in Exhibit 6 merely states: The
LAP Evaluation Committee has determined that you have not
successfully complied with their recommendations and appear not to
have gained insight regarding your alcohol abuse. In addition, your
participation in the LAP has been terminated ..
So, CBX refuses to identify specifically how Applicant had any
failure to satisfy the terms of his Abeyance agreement with the
Committee. Then, in choosing the in addition language in Exhibit 6,
LAP refuses to even state Applicant was terminated from his
participation in the program for any reason, implying such only
terminated because LAP finally felt like it was pushing it a bit by
stretching out a six month monitoring agreement out nearly two years.
Seemingly, LAP just felt the six months had finally run its course.
The Bar put on no credible evidence whatsoever to support any
interpretation of the above. As such, there is nothing but vague hearsay
in the record to support a view that Coughlin's application was denied by
CBX, much less why. Guys selling jewelry out of displays on the inside of
their trench coats move with more credibility than this nonsense out of
CBX and LAP, especially after then nearly four years of suffering their
terrible company politely. CBX and LAP may feel that such makes them
appear grand and powerful, but it really just makes them come off as
tacky, shady, and immoral.
The Decision fails to identify any evidence, skips making any findings,
and goes straight to making a conclusion that: The LAP Evaluation
Committee decided that applicant had not successfully complied with
their recommendations and thus, terminated applicant's participation in
LAP. Thus is a lot different than the LAP's in addition. Where does
Judge McElroy find support for thus?
T444-446 (Applicant cross-examining Dr. Tucker): Mr. Coughlin:
Assuming there is now enough foundation as to your knowledge of the
LAP program, would you say it is problematic for, say, the radiologist to
be telling someone that they are not sober because of their use of
medications that are being prescribed by a pain management professional
or specialist. Do you see that as problematic? Ms. Kagan: Objection,
relevance. Judge McElroy: Overruled. A: I think that is potentially
problematic. Q: Why? A: It may not be within the expertise of the
radiologist as you are suggesting. 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
inappropriate approach. Q: Thank you, Dr. Tucker. Is some of the fallout of
someone going with this approach include jeopardizing one's medical care
and health? Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and speculation. Judge
McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection at this point. Q: Could some of
the fallout of this type of approach include one not being one not having a
great relationship with the LAP program. Ms. Kagan: Same objection,
Your Honor. Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection. Q: So you
are familiar that I have had some problem with the LAP program? A: You
mentioned that you were terminated for non-compliance. Q: Can you see
where the approach characterized by our discussion about the radiologist,
can you see where that would affect one's participation in the LAP
program? Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance. Judge McElroy: Overruled. A:
Yes, I can see how that would affect your feelings towards the LAP
program. Q: Would this be especially true if one's health care and health
had been jeopardized by the LAP program's approach. Ms. Kagan:
Objection, lacks foundation, speculation. Judge McElroy: Sustained. 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 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? Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance. Judge McElroy: Sustained.
Mr. Coughlin: I wish to show the relevance for this- Judge McElroy: You
need to call the LAP people as your witnesses and cross-examine them or
put them on direct. Mr. Coughlin: But they are not experts in the way that
Dr. Tucker is. Judge McElroy: They are experts in the issue of whether
you have been terminated from LAP and that is an issue here, but Dr.
Tucker doesn't know, other than the fact that you have been terminated.
Mr. Coughlin: So it is whether or not, or is it why I was terminated? Judge
McElroy: Why? Whether? Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so is this going to why?
Judge McElroy: Don't argue with me. Ask the next question. Q: So, your
opinion, Dr. Tucker seems to be that I would benefit from resuming my
previous pain management and ADD treatments? 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 the past.
Elsewhere in the Decision Judge McElroy continues with the theme of
misrepresenting what Exhibit 6 actually says where the Decision reads:
But on April 7, 2006, applicant was terminated from LAP as the LAP
Evaluation Committee determined that applicant had not successfully
complied with its recommendations and that applicant had not gained
insight regarding his alcohol abuse issues. As the? Thus? Compared
to in addition? The first two have a causal correlation vibe to them, the
third? Not so much.
The Decision noted: Applicant did not present any credible evidence
on why he was terminated from LAP. On one hand, he claimed that he did
not know why he was terminated from LAP. On the other hand, he
claimed that he was terminated from LAP because he would not let LAP
jeopardize his physical well-being. In other word, applicant' reasoning is
without merit.
Combine all that with the fact that Applicant actually did put on
testimony as to the fact that he did not do anything to justify a
termination for cause from LAP or otherwise to fail to comply with any
term of the Participation Plan (they would rather vaguely allude to
recommendations than the specific requirements put in writing in the
Participation Plan). Such testimony revealed the unlicensed practice of
medicine the LAP fancied engaging in. None of this was rebutted by the
CBX or Bar in any way, nor did the Bar put on any evidence to
demonstrate that Coughlin was terminated for cause by the LAP or that
CBX recommended denying his application due to some breach of an
agreement. Exhibits 6 and 55 were not even authenticated, beyond the
fact that they are hearsay and double hearsay and impossibly vague.
The Decision here continues that theme by failing to make much of
anything in the way of findings of fact (much less cite to such in the
record) to support its conclusions. The fact that the Bar did not have to
put on any witnesses from the CBX or LAP to support the position that
Coughlin was terminated from LAP for cause or somehow failed to comply
with any agreements with either LAP or the CBX speaks volumes to the
patent due process invalidity of the entire trial.

Page 64-65 of Exhibit 70: Q. Nobody ever told you why you were
terminated from LAP? A. No. Q. Did it have something to do with the fact
that LAP thought you weren't sober? A. I can't speak for LAP. I can tell
you that LAP, five minutes after meeting you and after being told to
monitor your alcohol abuse, will go into your physician's office and
demand to see anything related to your medical care. And when people
with the master's in family therapy will make judgments based on
whether or not your medical care qualifies you as being sober or not Q. Is
that what happened in this case? A. I'm not sure. But to me, that kind of
sounds like they're practicing medicine without a license.
Q. Do you believe you were wrongly terminated from LAP? A. I don't
agree with LAP's termination of me, so- Q. Why not? A. I think I did
everything they asked me to do. Q. Can you describe that? A. If they asked
me to do something, I did it Q. So what exactly did you do as part of LAP?
A. The recovery activity for 180 days; agreeing to be tested; asking them
where do I get tested? When do I get tested; Not receiving any answer
from them until two weeks from when the six month period was about to
end, getting all these different letters from all these different doctors at
my own expense; answering questions about my sexual history and my
sexual preferences, and all sorts of questions that I don't see how they
related to the terms of the abeyance agreement which was for LAP to
monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse; having LAP go in and take a
look at all my medical records and making- and telling me that they do
not feel I am sober because I'm taking these medications. Specifically,
verbatim, that is what they said. Q. So they did tell you why you were
terminated? No.
86
T445:14-28: "Judge McElroy: You need to call the LAP people as your
witnesses and cross-examine them or put them on direct. Mr. Coughlin:
But they are not experts in the way that Dr. Tucker is. Judge McElroy:
They are experts in the issue of whether you have been terminated from
LAP and that is an issue here, but Dr. Tucker doesn't know, other than the
fact that you have been terminated. Mr. Coughlin: So it is whether or not,
or is it why I was terminated? Judge McElroy: Why? Whether? Mr.
Coughlin: Okay, so is this going to why? Judge McElroy: Don't argue with
me. Ask the next question."
T462-464:10: Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor can I ask you to what extent is
this suggestion that I somehow didn't do what LAP told me to do- Judge
McElroy: You need to call them. You may have a reason for not doing
what LAP wanted you to do but you have to call them in as witnesses. Mr.
Coughlin: okay and I'm not even saying I didn't do what what they wanted
me to do and I have not seen- Judge McElroy: You were terminated from
LAP, okay. That's the, that is the only thing the court knows at this point
is you were terminated from LAP. And that's why the Committee could
not make a recommendation to the Supreme Court of California that you
be 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. Mr.
Coughlin: and all they said so far was that- Judge McElroy: you were
terminated. Mr. Coughlin: I was terminated? Judge McElroy: you were
terminated. Mr. Coughlin: So, we don't know what that could be for? Judge
McElroy: Only the evidence that was introduced at the trial is what I'm
taking into consideration. One, that you were terminated. You did not- Mr.
Coughlin: And that's it? We don't know why we, don't know if it's because
I looked at them the wrong way or if I failed twenty drug tests or what?
Judge McElroy: That is something you can argue. You can put it, you can
argue. Mr. Coughlin: but we're not they're not showing anything to
support that, so at this point what's that worth? To the determination?
Judge McElroy: it's something that goes into consideration. Mr.
Coughlin: but if we have no idea why I was terminated? Judge McElroy:
you were terminated from LAP, a violation of the 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? Judge
McElroy: No, it's your burden you- Mr. Coughlin: But at this point they
are rebutting my original case, so it's their burden isn't it? Judge McElroy:
No.....
T468:1- 472:11: Judge McElroy: What I would do is direct your
attention to Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin to focus your direct examination. Mr.
Coughlin: that one page in exhibit 6? Judge McElroy: Yes. Mr. Coughlin:
Okay. Judge McElroy: as you indicated you were confused as to why you
were terminated from LAP. Mr. Coughlin: to read from Exhibit 6: the
LAP Evaluation Committee has determined that you have not
successfully complied with their recommendations and appeared not to
have gained insight 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 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
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
after three years of dealing with the LAP program and spending a lot of
money to jump through different hoops that they required and having my
medical care criticized severely in the face of me providing them with like
30 pages of AA sheets. Having a radiologist and a psychologist question
the care provided- Ms. Kagan: Objection, hearsay. Judge McElroy: Okay,
that's the basis. Im going to overrule the objection. That's the basis for
your termination from LAP. That's what you're saying. Mr. Coughlin: is
what? Judge McElroy: That you didn't like the report from a radiologist.
Mr. Coughlin: No, what I like and what I don't like I don't think decides
whether I am terminated. Judge McElroy: Im just suggesting that you
focus in on what you said you were putting yourself on the stand for it in
terms of direct examination, your termination from LAP. Mr. Coughlin:
right, and Im saying I don't know why I was terminated from LAP. Judge
McElroy: Okay, so, what's the next evidence you want to go on- 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 mean?
Judge McElroy: yes. Mr. Coughlin: because I haven't been told why.
And then I'm pointing to this exhibit 52 to show that the even if LAP
wants to say it was over some testing that they wanted done, we made
efforts to, we have written evidence here you know showing the we made
efforts to comply with them. I don't see any evidence from them pointing
to the contrary, so. Judge McElroy: okay, so let's move on. Exhibit 52 was
admitted. Mr. Coughlin: I will state that at my meeting with LAP in
August they did in fact in concert say to me- Ms. Kagan: Objection,
hearsay. Judge McElroy: Overruled. Mr. Coughlin: They did say to me
that you're not sober because you're taking these medications. I can tell
you that can throw, can be bad for your health. 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? 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. ...
...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 medicine- Judge 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. ...
87
Kagan misleads the court here in indicating she could competently
testify to events she did not witness.
88
This is completely false. Nothing in the Bar's homespun version a
transcript of such informal conference can be said to be tantamount to
such. Coughlin at no time ever claimed to have an addiction to alcohol
nor did he ever contend such caused some of the conduct investigated by
the Committee in relation to its moral character determination. Kagan
rode this misrepresentation for all it was worth, and, tellingly, did not
attach a copy of such purported transcript to her Motion. Based on such,
Judge McElroy allowed Kagan, Dr. Tucker, et al to violate pretty much
all of Coughlin's constitutional rights.
89
This is a misrepresentation by Kagan. Actually, Applicant indicated
at the 7/8/04 that the issues the CBX had with Coughlin would be there
whether Coughlin was drinking alcohol or not, where Applicant stated:
Even if you took out the alcohol, I'd still have character defects, still
have the alcoholism part of it. I've really worked to address that. There
has been pretty much a complete psychic change. Coughlin's referring to
the then more en vogue mystical concept of some old time-y revivalist
concept of a spiritual disease referred to as alcoholism in no way
admits to his having ever been addicted to alcohol or ever having had an
alcohol abuse disorder. See Exhibit 70, page 14 wherein Applicant
stated: "A- I don't think I ever said I had an addiction to alcohol."
90
This is a misrepresentation by Susan Ilene Kagan, Esq.
91
This is another outright lie by Kagan. The stipulation mentions
nothing of alcohol addiction.
92T6.
93
Further, despite the CBX's 6/7/06 letter inaccurately citing to
Applicant's being disciplined while a student at UNLV (he was never
formally disciplined), Kagan's 12/11/06 Response indicates that the Bar
would make no claim at trial that Applicant omitted or misrepresented
anything concerning any allegations of being disciplined while a student
at UNLV's school of law. Yet, Judge McElroy allowed Kagan to take up
nearly a full day of trial putting on testimony about such from Associate
Dean Smith and Adjunct Professor Tratos.
She can not claim to have been unaware of these matters at the time of
filing her Response. Such smacks of Kagan wanting an advantage at trial
against an Applicant told such would not be at issue until Kagan filing a
late in the game Pre-Trial Statement of 4/10/07 prior to a trial starting
5/7/07, where Kagan had succeeded in getting Judge McElroy to order
Applicant to spend such scant intervening time traveling to submit to a
medical evaluation by the Bar's Dr. Douglas Tucker, MD, and yet another
deposition. Further, seeking a delay of the trial was not an option for
Applicant given the rule requiring one be sworn in within five years of
passing the bar and the dishonest delay tactics employed by CBX and LAP
making such five year deadline then imminent.
Kagan's 12/11/06 Response limited what the Bar's rebuttal could
include given how very little was included in Applicant's proving his prima
facie case of character.
Such Response included pleading the DUI arrest and Applicant's
description thereof, material omissions limited to failing to report his law
school employment and termination therefrom, failure to update
application to disclose civil actions and defaults, failure to update Hale
Lane employment history, failure to update Jones Street address, and
misrepresentations and lack of candor regarding substance abuse (yet
nothing alleging failing to characterize being ordered to attend 8 AA
meetings his 3/19/03 letter to the CBX reported was somehow a referrals or
rehabilitative programs in which you have been enrolled for treatment of
abuse issues." ), and some failure to cooperate with investigation in refusing
to provide an updated LAP release. That sentence in the CBX's Crary's
letter's is not even grammatically correct, adding further to the confusion
that should have defeated any finding the Bar met its burden on this issue.
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly over an hour of
testimony from LVMPD Officer Cho regarding the October 2001 movie
theater arrest, which Kagan's 12/11/06 Response indicates will not be raised
as an issue.
In a continuing display of how oft one-sided the Decision was, the
Court completely failed to accord any weight to the extreme candor and
character inherent to Applicant reporting and taking responsibility for his
actions (admitting to sneaking into a movie theater without paying despite
not even being charged with such) incident to an arrest that was dismissed.
Further the Decision incorrectly asserts that Applicant only reported
such after the committee made inquiry into the arrest. That is incorrect.
Applicant reported such arrest to both the Bar's of California and Nevada in
his Moral Character Applications without any prompting and despite the
fact that such was not even required given such arrest did not lead to a
conviction. Rather that see such as evidence of cooperation, candor, and
character, the Court dismisses such incident as altogether unimportant.
Such clearly argues in favor of overcoming any rebutting of the prima facie
case as to character advanced by the OCTC. The Decision further noted
about the 2001 movie theater arrest: The incident was insignificant as to
his moral character.. Uh, actually, Applicant's law license in Nevada
would have never been delayed had it not been for that arrest. Had that
been the case, Coughlin would have never been subjected to the crossexamination by CBX's Mark J. Decastro, Esq., with his then attorney
Fishkin muzzled. Applicant would have never been subjected to attempts to
brainwash him with the specious twelve step mantras being demanded of
him, and would have never mentioned anything about alcoholism at the
Informal Conference, and would therefore not have been subjected to the
abuse and violations of his rights by the LAP and Kagan. Further, he would
not have been let go from at least four promising positions at law firms. So,
if such incident was so irrelevant to his moral character, why all those
consequences?
The Bar's 4/19/07 Pre-Trial Statement does not even mention the
10/14/01 arrest for charges that were dismissed, other than to specify Officer
Cho as a possible witness. Judge McElroy grew angry with Applicant for
objecting on relevancy grounds. Applicant accurately reported the
circumstances of this arrest, despite his not being required to by either the
Nevada or California Bars. It is an example of candor that Judge McElroy,
like the CBX's Decastro, refused to acknowledge.
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly an hour of presentation
related to minor, awfully recent alleged consumer debts that the Bar only
became aware of upon the extreme display of candor and cooperation
attendant to Applicant providing a copy of his credit report.
The alleged creditors include the River Arms Apartments complex
falsely reporting that Applicant owed money judgments when no such
money judgments are allowed in such summary evictions, and then
relatively recent medical debts from 2006 and 2007 and other very minor
alleged (disputed) consumer debts. It is improper to turn the State Bar
Court into an arena to litigate mere disputed consumer debts. Given the
other matters the Decision deemed to be insignificant here, is is incongruous
to find Applicant taking all of a month to report something to the Bar upon
it showing up on a credit report to be a material omission. There is a point
where the Bar may begin to come across as bullying, heartless, and
intellectually dishonest. Was it reached here?
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly over three hours of
highly prejudicial testimony (consisting largely of hearsay and double
hearsay) from UNLV Associate Dean Smith and Adjunct Professor Mark
Tratos related to matters which Kagan's 12/11/06 Response indicates will not
be raised as an issue. (See page 7, lines 16-24 of Kagan's 4/10/07 Pre-Trial
Statement and consider the advantage the Bar had in misrepresenting that
the allegations first made there would not be brought up at trial in its
12/11/06 Response). A similar advantage was had in the 12/11/06 Response's
misrepresenting that the following (from the 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement)
would not be alleged, at Page 8, 1-15:
"...Although it was determined that applicant was not involved
in academic dishonesty in this matter, the investigation was
resolved with a formal letter of warning. Contrary to applicant's
statements, only one affidavit was ever submitted to the Nevada
State Bar in relation to the inquiry. fn2. There is no evidence of
any other affidavits in the matter. "
Kagan either misrepresented or committed misconduct in alleging
that the academic dishonesty investigation was resolved with a formal
letter of warning as Exhibit 53 makes plain that is not the case. The fact
that Judge McElroy let Kagan and her witnesses drone on prejudicially for
hours is further evidence of the lack of due process accorded Applicant in
this matter.
The Bar's 12/11/06 Response limited what its rebuttal could entail.
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly two hours of testimony
from State Bar employees Lynn Thingvold and Investigator Bill Stephens
related to allegedly unreported speeding tickets and fixed fix it tickets for
not having proof of insurance and mere notices of failures to appear (which
are entirely different from convictions for failures to appear) stemming
therefrom (ie, utterly minor DMV matters) which Kagan's 12/11/06 Response
indicates will not be raised as an issue.
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly over three hours of
testimony from UNLV Associate Dean Smith and Dr. Douglas Tucker
related to Applicant's alleged lack of fitness issues (whether implying
mental illness or disorders or chemical dependency) which Kagan's 12/11/06
Response indicates will not be raised as an issue.
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly an hour of examination
of Applicant related to the inaccurate claim he failed to update his
application to report self employment as sole proprietor of a mattress
business which Kagan's 12/11/06 Response indicates will not be raised as an

issue. Regardless, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Applicant
it was not until May 31, 2004, that applicant updated his application to
include self-employment from October 2003 to the present.. Applicant did
not admit to that at trial and the Bar failed to call any witnesses to support
such argument. Further, Applicant was represented by attorney Fishkin at
such point, and to whatever extent Applicant did not directly inform the
CBX (which is not clear, at all, as applicant disputed such contention), the
Bar offered no argument or citation to authority to support any implicit
contention that Applicant was not entitled to rely upon his counsel to so so
inform the CBX.
Yet, at trial Judge McElroy permitted nearly two hours of
examination of Applicant and the Bar's Thingvold and Stephens over
whether Applicant failed to adequately or timely report when he applied for
admission to the patent bar and whether he held himself out as a patent
agent when he was really a patent attorney or vice versa which Kagan's
12/11/06 Response indicates will not be raised as an issue. The pettiness in
Kagan's last minute allegations is breathtaking and an utter
embarrassment to the State Bar of California that will only become more
glaring and public to the extent the injustice perpetrated here is not
rectified.
examination of Applicant related to his allegedly failing to display candor
as to matters he had every right to assert privileges against testifying to
(and to which Judge McElroy threatened to use a contempt power she lacks)
which Kagan's 12/11/06 Response indicates will not be raised as an issue.
And yet Judge McElroy was clearly dismayed with Applicant
throughout the trial for not following protocol?
Rule 5.101: "(E) Failure to File Pretrial Statements. If a party fails to
file a pretrial statement, the Court may order sanctions it deems proper,
including but not limited to excluding evidence or witnesses." However,
Judge McElroy literally seemingly excluded none of the State Bar's
evidence or witnesses and excluded the lion's share of Applicant, on even the
most key issues.
Neither the Bar's 12/11/06 Response or 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement
make any allegation that Applicant lacks the fitness to practice law, but
rather, cites only that the Committee contends that applicant does not
currently possess the requisite good moral character... to warrant his
admission. At Trial, significant periods of time were allowed the Bar to
explore its improvised attack that Applicant lacked the fitness to practice
to be admitted. Character is distinct from fitness. Fitness was not noticed as

an issue by the Bar.
Further, in an egregious display of dishonesty and bad faith the Bar's
Kagan's Affidavit purports to relay matters that the Bar and LAP were
bound by agreement per the 6/22/05 Authorization and Disclosure of Release
of Information (which expired on 6/22/06) not to release at such time as
Kagan's 3/20/07 Motion, particularly where she admits herself therein that
she was only assigned such case in September of 2006. Kagan further made a
misrepresentation in such Affidavit where she wrote: 6. On April 7, 2006,
applicant was terminated from LAP (implying such was for cause rather
than natural result of the six month abeyance period ending) as she was
aware at such time as April 7, 2006 that LAP had no right to terminate
Applicant given the six month abeyance agreement only permitted LAP to
monitor Applicant for his recovery from alcohol abuse through 1/15/05.
At such 7/8/04 Conference, the CBX's Mark Decastro questioned
Applicant about his suspect candor with relation to a dismissed 2001 movie
theater arrest that Applicant reported to both the State Bars of Nevada
(wrongfully excised from Exhibit 15 (which is now two pages in this Court's
file but was originally over 130 pages of materials from the State Bar of
Nevada from Applicant's admissions file supporting a finding that he had
the requisite character and or rehabilitation for admission to practice law in
either state)) despite Coughlin offering such into evidence and despite the
Court having admitted to look over such materials when submitted along
with the Bar's 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement) and California despite neither
Applications for Admission requiring he report such. The Decision here
incorrectly notes: Applicant was not required to report the arrest on his
application because it was dismissed. Nevertheless, he did report it after the
committee made an inquiry into the arrest. That is false, Applicant
reported such arrest unprompted to both the Nevada and California Bars.
Such is an extreme display of candor and honesty the Decision and CBX here
accorded no significance to.
94
T75-84, 317-320, 359, 360, 417.
95
Exhibit 62 (to the extent it is even legible) and Exhibit 63 make clear
both River Arms matters were summary evictions, not plenary unlawful
detainer civil actions. Regardless, the 2005 summary eviction was clearly
withdrawn as Coughlin continued living at the Jones River Arms address
through April 2006. More sloppy gun slinging by Kagan.
96
As to what the Decision ruled on the Bar's rebuttal, there are a number
of clearly inaccurate rulings. With respect to the charge Applicant
misrepresented the outcome of the academic dishonesty investigation, the
Decision notes: While applicant had clearly exaggerated the outcome of

the investigation in that it was not "completely" resolved in his favor, give
the formal letter of warning. However, plainly, from a review of Exhibit
53 and the testimony of Applicant, Assoc. Dean Smith, and Professor
Tratos, there was no formal letter of warning issued with regard to the
academic dishonesty charge. There was no formal letter of warning issued
with regard to any charge, actually. Further, there is no evidence in the
record that only one affidavit was submitted to either UNLV or the State
Bar of Nevada. The Bar merely offered evidence showing only one
affidavit was submitted to the State Bar of Nevada, whereas Applicant's
statements did not identify any limitation with respect to which entities
any affidavits were submitted to.
The Decision then proceeds to admit it was based on matters not pled
by the Bar and for which Judge McElroy would not allow Applicant to
rebut: However, what is of more concern to this court in terms of whether
applicant misrepresented the outcome of the investigation is applicant's
behavior surrounding the investigation. McElroy fails to note that
Professor Tratos reneged on his offer to pay for a data recovery service,
mentioning only his initial offer. The Decision further notes: applicant
sent unprofessional e-mails ...Tratos testified that he found the e-mails
troubling and irrational and that no professor would be comfortable in
getting those correspondence. Thus, applicant's conduct negatively reflects
on his moral character. Applicant was refused an opportunity to rebut such
claims.
Next, the Decision claims the Committee claimed something that it did
not. Rather, the charges concerning Applicant's moving a computer monitor,
etc. at UNLV were made only by Kagan in a fit of dubious retaliation. The
Decision makes several findings that plainly are not supported by the
record and on allegations Applicant was refused any opportunity to rebut
and for which the Bar's Response indicated would not be alleged at trial:
...he used the computer for personal, nonacademic work
without permission... what does reflect on his moral character is
his testimony about the incident at this hearing. Applicant
testified that he was not sure whether he had authorization to
use the computer and that he simply knew that he needed to
download a program from the school computer to get his laptop
working. Applicant's testimony is not credible. He knew or
should have known that he had no authorization to dismantle a
computer monitor, keyboard and mouse set up in the micro-forms
room of the UNLV Law Library as the computer was in an area
not for general student use.

There was no evidence offered to support a finding as to whether
Applicant's use was for personal or academic reasons other than Applicant's
testimony that he was attempting to repair his home computer. Student's
use computers at their homes for academic use. Assoc. Dean Smith herself
testified such computer was in an area open for student use. Further
testimony suggested that Applicant would have been permitted to do what
he did if he did it in the adjacent computer lab, which undermines the
finding that he knew or should have known that he had not authorization
to do what was done.
Further evidence of the extreme lack of due process in this matter is
evident from the Decision purporting the record to contain support for
following: According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, if applicant
wanted to seek registration as an attorney, he had to submit an original
certificate of good standing issued within the last six months from the
Nevada Supreme Court. But because applicant's membership with the
Nevada State Bar has been conditional, there is no clear and convincing
evidence that he was in good standing. In fact, Applicant received a
Certificate of Good Standing from the State Bar of Nevada dated 12/5/07,
completely disproving Judge McElroy's unsupported sua sponte hypothesis.
There was absolutely no evidence or argument (much less citation to
authority) put on as to such. There is no support for the contention that a
conditional admission in Nevada precludes one from being in good standing
or otherwise seek registration as an attorney with the USPTO.
The Decision notes:
On July 19, 2004, applicant executed a Stipulation
Pursuant to Rule X, Section 4 (Abeyance Stipulation) wherein he
agreed to have his recovery from alcohol abuse monitored by
LAP. On June 24, 2005, applicant provided an Authorization for
Disclosure and Release of Information which allowed LAP to
disclose information to the Committee about applicant's
participation in LAP. On June 30, 2005, applicant enrolled in
LAP. But on April 7, 2006, applicant was terminated from LAP as
the LAP Evaluation Committee determined that applicant had
not successfully complied with its recommendations and that
applicant had not gained insight regarding his alcohol abuse
issues.
Actually, Applicant's 9/28/02 CBX Application contains such
Authorization for Disclosure and Release of Information sufficient to
allow LAP to disclose such information, as does the additional
authorization and release applicant at pages 10-13 of attorney Fishkin's

letter in Exhibit 45. There was never any agreement to sign a release
drawn up by the twelve step zealots in LAP (whom actually are not that
into twelve step ideology, as evidenced by their blase dismissal of
Applicant's documented attendance at well over 500 hours of AA
meetings, rather, they support the sort of twelve step work that requires
applicants and or lawyers to pay them $500 a month for five years for the
privilege of being force fed the religion step step fanatics claim to be mere
spirtuality.) that permitted them to poke around in any and every area
of Applicant's life for six years (see Exhibit 45, pages 5-8) that it felt like
while committing the unlicensed practice of medicine to boot.
From: Poley, Pam <Pam.Poley@calbar.ca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 8,
2005 2:31 PM To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com Subject: Questions Zach, A
couple of questions please. While you touched on your spiritual growth,
were you raised attending church or do you attend church now? If so,
which one? ...Pam Poley, MFT, CADC Case Management Supervisor
Lawyer Assistance Program
The Decision gives a very, very one sided account of the the delay tacts
and lack of professionalism demonstrated by LAP, where it notes:
On July 19, 2004, applicant signed a stipulation
with the committee that his recovery from alcohol
abuse would be monitored by an agent from LAP. The
stipulation required applicant to authorize the
committee to release to LAP all materials submitted in
connection with his application and further required
applicant to sign a waiver of confidentiality and
release of information to allow LAP to report the
evaluation and findings to the committee. On June 22,
2005, applicant contacted LAP and completed the
telephone intake process. On February 16, 2006, the
LAP Evaluation Committee met to review applicant's
The Decision mentions not page 27 of Exhibit 72 wherein
LAP admits it was provided a signed release of info as early as
1/12/05 (despite one being provided on 9/28/02 in Exhibit 1). Nor
does it account for the reports sent to LAP's Poley by Applicant in
Exhibit 39 at pages 15 and 29-30 (also, note Kagan stipulated to
entering Applicant's AA attorney sponsor's glowing letter of
recommendation at pages 16-18, which further rebuts the
Decision's assessment that applicant offered not credible evidence
of his sobriety). What is a good question is whether LAP's Poley

was on drugs or drunk throughout the ordeal of dealing with her,
or otherwise had some mental health issue preventing her from
submitting the reports that CBX's Lawson indicates (see Exhibit
37) the LAP's Poley will be required to during the six month
abeyance period to end 1/13/05. Poley failed to file any such
reports.
LAP's Poley did not make any indication to Applicant that
his previous authorizations for release and disclosure of
information were not sufficient in her view until the last day of
the six month abeyance period, despite at least four separate
communications from Applicant prior thereto (See Exhibit 72
noting such on 9/21/04 and 10/4/04 and Exhibit 39 at pages 15 and
29, noting such on 11/30/04 and 12/27/04): From: Poley, Pam
<Pam.Poley@calbar.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:36
PM To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com 3 attachments (74 KB)
Evaluation Plan2.doc; ROI - CBX.doc; ROI - General.doc;Subject:
Zach, Attached is the Evaluation Plan (EP) and 2 different
authorizations. Please sign the EP, note how many abstinence
meetings you are attending weekly (e.g. AA type meetings) and
fill that in. The 2 authorizations are for CBX and the other one is
for your attorney. Please fill this out ASAP and MAIL them back
to me. Pam Poley.
Letter of 12/27/04 from Applicant to LAP's Poley: "Dear Ms.
Poley, Please accept this letter as a narrative relating to my
recovery from alcohol use. I have remained sober during the
entirety of the abeyance period. In March of 2003, I established a
relationship with my sponsor, Kelly Testolin, Esq., and met with
him one hour a week to work the steps of Alcoholics Anonymous
for 16 weeks. I also attended ninety meetings in ninety days and
served a coffee commitment for the Monday 8:00 a.m. "Eye Opener"
A. A. meeting (Kelly's letter confirms these A.A. related
activities)... I started collecting signatures verifying my
attendance at A.A. meetings in April of 2004, in an attempt to
better document my recovery for the Court. I have amassed over
130 signatures since April of 2004 and met with my sponsor, Kelly
Testolin, one hour a week for an additional 16 weeks..... In total, I
have gone through all 12 steps two separate times with Mr.
Testolin. Mr. Testolin has written me a strong letter of
recommendation. I have attended Coe Swobes weekly Lawyers
Concerned for Lawyers closed Alcoholics Anonymous meeting on

a regular basis since March of 2003. Since March of 2003, I have
met with my therapist, Oliver Ocskay, for 27 one hour
psychotherapy sessions. These sessions have focused on many
different issues, including recovery, my character defects,
cognitive behavioral therapy, stress reduction, and various other
personal issues. I met with Robert Hunter, Ph.D. approximately 10
times in 2002, each meeting consisting of a one-hour session of
psychotherapy. Thank you for your assistance and please let me
know if I can be of help to you in any way. Sincerely, Zach
Coughlin, J.D" Poley in Exhibit 39, page 29, of 12/27/04 with the
Jones St. address atop thereof). Applicant also sent a letter or
report to the LAP's Poley (See Exhibit 39, page 15 letter from
Applicant to LAP (over and beyond his requests to be provided
anything he is required to sign in his 9/21/04 and 10/4/04
telephone intake interviews noted in Exhibit 72) on 11/30/04
stating: "Please do not hesitate to let me know if there is
anything more I need to do to be in compliance with the Abeyance
Agreement which calls for an agent from the LAP to monitor my
recovery from alcohol abuse during the abeyance period." Yet the
Decision merely notes it took Coughlin from July 19, 2004 until
6/25/05 to even complete a telephone intake interview with LAP.
The Decision fails to make clear when, if ever the six month
abeyance term began or ended, but LAP seems to feel it only start
upon the signing of a "Participation Plan" (that is, of course, after
a drawn out period of LAP developing an "Evaluation Plan",
naturally, in September 2005. LAP and CBX ran this matter like
a three card monte.
What neither the Abeyance Stipulation nor the three page
Abeyance Policy Kagan excised from Exhibit 39 required was for
Applicant to allow LAP to go through any and all of his medical
records, obtain his prescription history, demand he cease taking
medications prescribed by a licensed physicians then retaliated
against Applicant for his failing to do so, demand Applicant apply
to be a participant in LAP for five years at his own expense, and
permit LAP to stretch out a six month abeyance term for years, or
allow LAP to not even respond to inquiries from Applicant.
Further, Exhibit 72 fails to include Applicant's letter to LAP's
Poley a few weeks prior to the conclusion of the six month
abeyance term, sent 12/28/04, nor does it include the enclosures
sent therewith (which included CBX Lawson's letter to Applicant

with the three page Abeyance Policy handout missing from
Exhibit 37, and attendance sheets at AA meetings. CBX and or
Poley/LAP have attempted to mislead this Court by submitting
Exhibit 72 with such excised in an attempt to justify the failure to
comply with the Abeyance Stipulation and LAP's Poley's failure
to file the reports required by Exhibit 39. Further, then attorney
Fishkin also mailed the complete abeyance package from the
CBX to LAP's Poley on 12/27/04. That has been unethically
excluded from Exhibit 72 by the Bar (which titled such exhibit
Documents from Lawyer Assistance Program, not, Highly
Misleading Selection of a Mere Few Documents from Lawyer
Assistance Program).
It is extremely telling that the three page Abeyance Policy
enclosures noted in CBX Lawson's letter referenced at page 2 of Exhibit
37 are missing from what the Bar offered into evidence. Where this Court
admits the crucial inquiry in this matter is whether Applicant was
terminated from LAP for cause and or whether such supports any
purported stance by CBX (whether relayed via double hearsay or not in an
unauthenticated document in Exhibit 55) that Applicant failed to fulfill
the terms of the Abeyance Stipulation, Kagan's excising such three page
enclosure that was attached to CBX Lawson's letter in Exhibit is
arguably misconduct. This continues the them of Kagan excising from
Exhibit 2 the Minute Order Applicant attached thereto reporting that he
was ordered to attend AA meetings as part of the plea bargain resulting
in a dry reckless driving conviction, in addition to Kagan excising bits of
the transcripts in Exhibit 13 and 14 that run contrary to what she
attempts to get across in the brief excerpts she did offer therefrom.
Exhibit 72, page 22, letter from LAP to Applicant brazenly
announcing the six month abeyance agreement to monitor applicant's
recovery from alcohol abuse that CBX and Applicant entered into has now
been unilaterally modificed by LAP to required Applicant become a full
five year participant in LAP whom will have only successfully completed
LAP upon demonstrating "Three years of continuous sobriety", where such
reads: "the Evaluation Committee can modify the Agreement ... at the
request of LAP staff. ...The Evaluation Committee determines completion
of the program. The LAP will acknowledge and verify both Successful
Participation in the Program and Successful Completion of the Program.
Successful Participation is defined as achieving and maintaining
sobriety/stability and full compliance with the terms of the Participation
Agreement. Successful Completion is defined as follows. These criteria

must be met in order to receive certification of completion of the Program.
1. The participant has maintained three years of continuous sobriety or, in
cases of mental health, stability; 2. The participant has made lifestyle
changes sufficient to maintain ongoing recovery or stability; 3. The
participant has satisfied the terms of the participation agreement; and, 4.
The participant has participated in the Program for a period of five
years..."
The LAP, in a display of the excesses it was permitted, took to telling
the Applicant and the CBX what the Abeyance Stipulation would include,
after such was entered into by those parties. See Exhibit 45, page 5
wherein LAP demands that Applicant apply to be enrolled as a full scale
participant in its program, and agree to allow LAP to set whatever terms
it chooses in some Participation Agreement it will draft, along with
requiring that Applicant agree to:
...Abstain from the use of alcohol and all psychotropic drugs except
those prescribed for me by an approved physician in consultation with the
Program. 6. I will provide copies of all prescriptions written for me. 7. I
will immediately report to my Case Manager or Group Facilitator any
relapse or use of any unauthorized drug or alcohol. 8. I will provide
random, observed biological fluid specimens as requested....I will pay the
fees for collection and testing at the time of the collection... I further
understand and acknowledge that any and all expenses incurred during
or as a result of my participation in the Program are my
responsibility....and agree that payment of Program fees are to be kept
current..." .
The Authorization and Release LAP finally demanded in April 2005
(after ignoring Coughlin's requests of 11/30/04 and 12/27/04 (Exhibit 39,
pages 15, 29-30) demanded Applicant agree to the release of "alcohol and
drug treatment information, AIDS/HIV information or
psychiatric/psychological/psycho-sexual information...for the purpose of
assisting the Program in designing a recovery program for me" and to
agree that such received information "will not be made available to me by
the Program", and all of this "for six (6) years" from the date of signing
such. See, also, Page 8 of Exhibit 45, requiring applicant to agree to LAP
obtaining and disclosing files or records pertaining to
me...concerning...psychiatric treatment...other communicable diseases....
For six (6) years. See Exhibit 46 and consider the subsequent tantrum and
delay tactics the unstable LAP's Poley engaged in despite the agreement
come to by then attorney Fishkin and Poley's supervisor, Janis R.
Thibault, MFT, CADC.

97While Judge McElroy indicated at the very outset of trial (T2) that
Coughlin need prove he had been rehabilitated from any substance abuse
issues (before any evidence of such had been put on-apparently from her
review of the pre-trial proposed exhibit binders the Bar filed on 4/10/07),
she clearly had not applied the same prejudice to anything to do with
previous showings of Coughlin's character contained in, say, the over one
hundred and thirty pages of materials the State Bar of Nevada submitted
in response to a request from the California Bar that Kagan subsequently
excised from Exhibit 15 at trial. This makes implausible Judge McElroy's
assertion at trial that she knew nothing of whether the Nevada Bar had
any moral character evaluations that go into their licensing process. T12:
"Judge McElroy: Was there are moral character component in getting the
license for Nevada? Was there moral character component in getting a
license to be a patent attorney? These are the things we need to hear.".
The same is true considering the complete transcripts of Coughlin's two
previous moral character hearings in Nevada that were provided in those
binders the Bar filed on 4/10/07 that were cut up inappropriately to result
in the extremely truncated versions that now exist thereof in Exhibits 13
and 14.
Further, the Decision here purports to make findings of many matters
for which there is no support in the record, especially considering what
Kagan excised from Exhibit 15, where the Decision states: The Nevada's
Bar Committee on Moral Character and Fitness (Nevada Committee) had
several issues of concerns regarding applicant, such as his criminal
charges, the incidents at the law school, employment termination and
mental stability. In September 2002, after a hearing, the Nevada
Committee recommended that applicant be conditionally admitted to the
Nevada State Bar. By order dated December 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of
Nevada deferred the admission of applicant as an attorney until October
1, 2003. The deferral was conditioned on applicant's compliance with the
following terms: (1) submit to monthly counseling by a licensed Ph.D.
psychologist and submit to and abide by any course of treatment deemed
necessary and recommended by the psychologist; (2) submit a signed
release allowing the State Bar of Nevada access to any counseling records;
(3) submit quarterly statements to the Office of Bar Counsel during the
probationary period attesting to his compliance with the conditions; and
(4) abide by the Nevada Supreme Court Rules and the Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Nevada. On December 21, 2004,
the Nevada Committee reported that applicant had successfully
completed and fully complied with the terms of the conditions of his
deferral agreement throughout the deferral period and recommended that
applicant be admitted to the State Bar of Nevada conditioned again on the
terms of his deferral as set forth above. On March 25, 2005, the Supreme
Court of Nevada issued an order admitting applicant as a member of the
Nevada State Bar. However, that admission was conditioned until 2008 on
the terms of probation as set forth in his deferral agreement.
It is improper for Judge McElroy to admit she reviewed all the
materials in the proposed exhibit binders submitted to the Court by the
Bar on 4/10/07, only for such to be removed from the Court's file herein,
especially where Exhibit 15 consists of only two pages in the Court's filed
(page 29 and 63 of such). Further, the record in this matter does not seem
to indicate any of the correspondence to the Bar by Applicant's then
attorney Fishkin was admitted, so what is in the record that supports all
the above findings? This precludes legitimate appellate review and
Applicant moves for an order requiring the Bar and or State Bar Court to
correct the record. A much of what is missing from that Exhibit details
the extent to which misconduct by others dragged out Applicant's moral
character evaluation in Nevada. Regardless, the Decision makes several
misstatements therein. An attempt to present a complete appellate record
can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/327092997/5-8-07-inRe-Application-of-Coughlin-06-M-13755-Complete-File-With-Al-77-TrialExhibits-CBX-Ocr-981-With-489-Pages-Trial-Transcript
98
Another theme in Kagan work is to file Exhibits with the court well
prior to trial (or, in some cases, during trial), only to withdrawn them
after the court has admitted it has already reviewed such. Coughlin
offered into evidence all of the Exhibits the State Bar filed. Consider this
email: From: <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004
12:58:55 -0700 To: jerome@fishkinlaw.com Subject: Re: Request from LAP's
Pam Poley Hi Jerry, I mailed a package to Pam Poley yesterday, Monday,
which contained the 2 page letter from Mrs. Lawson proposing the
Abeyance Agreement, the signed Abeyance Agreement, a 3 page letter
referring to Character and Fitness applications in general, pages 1 and 3
of the Abeyance Handout (which is a total of 3 pages long), and some more
recent AA meeting signatures.
A review of the file in the State Bar Court indicates that such have
been removed, as what Kagan originally filed with the Court and
Coughlin later offered into evidence himself is not what is found in the
court file. For instance, the entirety of the transcripts from Coughlin's
two formal admissions hearings in Nevada was indeed filed and

submitted to the Court by Kagan and then offered by Coughlin. (see
Exhibits 13, 14, 15, 16, 57, 58-59 (the Bar ought be required to disclose the
entirety of what UNLV provided it as much is exculpatory and some
reveals Bar misconduct), all of 73).
99
100 (until the dubious claims it made in June of 2005 that the monitoring
under the Abeyance Stipulation had not begun due to Coughlin having
then yet to complete a telephone intake interview that LAP's own record
in Exhibit 72 clearly show Coughlin completed a telephone intake with
LAP on 3/5/03 (Exhibit 72, page 2) and, again, in on 9/21/04 (Page 2 of
Exhibit 72)).
101 Such 3/22/05 letter from the CBX's Lawson states: Until Mr. Coughlin
enrolls in the State Bar of California's Lawyers Assistance Program, he is
not fulfilling the terms of his Abeyance Stipulation.
102 See Exhibit 45, Applicant's then attorney Fishkin's 4/15/05 letter to
CBX stating: In my conversation with Pam Poley, I was advised that
LAP wants a full sign up of Zach Coughlin. It is my understanding that
the Committee was not requiring a full sign up, only a more limited
monitoring of Mr. Coughlin's ongoing programs in Nevada, participation
in Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and participation in his local
Alcoholics Anonymous.
103T5:21-6:6.
104The Bar's own expert, Dr. Tucker, refused to indicate that he felt
Coughlin then had any current substance abuse issue that would then
currently interfere with his ability to practice. T453:9-12.
105 Further evidence of Dr. Tucker's bias exists in the fact that for all his
grab bag of psychiatric disorders he ponders as to whether Coughlin meets
some of the diagnostic criteria for, Tucker (aside from indicating he feels
Applicant should likely return to taking stimulant and narcotic
prescription medications) never makes mention in his report of the ill
effects of being coerced into suddenly going off of such stimulant medication
for ADHD and narcotic medication for chronic pain. Would not there be a
significant adjustment period to ceasing administration of such medications,
and would not such affect Applicant's the personality and functioning of
Applicant in just as significant ways as Tucker's grab bag of theories? Why
no mention of such?
Further, Dr. Tucker refused to state that Coughlin was not
rehabilitated from any such alleged problems you have diagnosed him
with (much less the alcohol abuse issue the Court's Order was narrowly
tailored to in limiting what he could evaluate), but instead indicated that

anyone deemed to have such alcohol abuse issues is never cured, no matter
how solid their recovery or rehabilitation is. T432, 430:8-16.
106 Actually, Dr. Tucker did not go quite that far. T and Exhibit
107 How a test (much less a Reader's Digest style bit of homespun wisdom
such as that one) can be diagnostic when it is purporting to identify
something not even listed in the DSM-IV, is curious. The fact that a court
of law considers such worthy of putting in its Decision, or that a physician
such as Tucker would administer such, much less include it in his report
and testimony, undermines the legitimacy of both.
108 Actually, Dr. Tucker did not go quite that far. Further, its was
improper for the Decision to consider any such testimony given the
narrow, limited scope of the 4/19/07 Order requiring such evaluation,
which stated: profession opinion as to whether the applicant currently
suffers from alcohol abuse or other drug abuse or dependency (but Tucker
went with the lifelong stamp angle of twelve step zealots), and, if so, what
if any, monitoring, testing, or treatment would be recommended to address
said abuse or dependency.
109 Actually, the Court is plainly obsessed with get some admission by
Applicant as to whether he has consumed alcohol (or any mind altering
chemicals, really) at any point in the preceding two years per the then
prevailing standard.
Regardless, see Exhibit 71 and T427-430 for evidence of the fact that
the Bar's own expert, utilizing highly invasive testing procedures, was
unable to come up with any evidence that Applicant was the currently
abusing alcohol, which is what Judge McElroy claimed to be so concerned
with. So that means there was even more evidence (beyond Applicant's
own testimony that he was not and the Bar's and LAP's inability to
impeach such in any way despite being given carte blanche in a right's
violating sense by this Court and CBX) of the fact that there was no
alcohol or other substance abuse issue then impeding Applicant's
character or fitness for the purpose of practicing law.
110 Per the State Bar Court's standard at such time, an applicant such as
Coughlin (whom had arbitrarily been determined by CBX to have
alcoholism) whom had consumed even a drop of alcohol in the preceding
two years was excluded from consideration from someone who could
function as a lawyer, in a testament to the degree to which twelve step
hysteria and its illogical, ineffective, scientifically unsound true believer
views had influenced the State Bar Court.
111 What proof of this is there in the record? Judge McElroy simply
defines as deliberately evasive testimony that is different than that
which she wants to hear. She wanted Coughlin to testify that he had had
even a drop of alcohol in the preceding two years, at which point, she
would have denied his application. Coughlin was never informed by the
Bar or Court that he had some duty to obsessively chronicle whether he
had consumed even a drop of alcohol since May 2005, much less since
January 2003. Further, the record does not demonstrate that Coughlin
was even all that convinced he was an alcoholic or had any sort of
substance abuse disorder, but, rather, that he was convinced the arena of
moral character determinations was being overly influenced by twelve
step ideology.
112 Actually, Applicant displayed an enormous amount of candor in
stipulating to the admission of the entirety of Exhibit 72, which exceeded
what the Bar even sought to have admitted therefrom, titled Documents
from the Lawyer's Assistance Program. The Decision is clearly inaccurate
where it found that Applicant was unable to tell the court anything
about his sobriety, other than the fact that he attended AA meetings.
Further, the Court presupposes that the only effective way to treat a
purported substance abuse program is via the absolute abstinence twelve
step idealogy that science has proven is actually rather ineffective (not to
mention belittling and prone to superstition), similar to raising teenage
pregnancy rates via preaching abstinence. One's sobriety is a completely
nebulous concept. Many people (the Applicant included here, seemingly)
did not even feel one's sobriety was a valid inquiry. Such is tantamount
to considering what one's favorite color is. Absent some legitimate proof
that one then has (and Dr. Tucker himself could not support such a
conclusion), much less ever had, a substance abuse issue that would
impede their ability to function as an attorney (much less pass three bar
exams), there is not valid reasons for the obsessive consideration of such a
non-issue.
113 That is not really true, as both Applicant's testimony at trial and the
hearsay relayed by Dr. Tucker provided proof that Applicant had ceased
drinking or using marijuana for so long a time that he could not even
remember when last he had consumed such.
114 Per California law, reasonable doubts on issues are to be resolved in an
applicant's favor. The Bar failed to meet its clear and convincing burden
of proof here.
115 It is comical to characterize someone whom had disclosed so much and
had so many of his privacy rights and privileges overrun here as lacking
candor.
116 See T480-481 wherein the Bar's Kagan makes another
misrepresentation in asserting Applicant's AA attorney sponsor's letter of
recommendation attesting to Applicant's rehabilitation and the state of
his sobriety was not in evidence when, in fact, Kagan herself successfully
had such admitted into evidence at Exhibit 39, pages 16-18. The Decision
fails to recognize such Testolin letter of recommendation was admitted
into evidence either. Further, it was plain error to refuse to admit the
State Bar of Nevada's Statewide Coordinator for Lawyers Concerned for
Lawyers, Coe Swobe, Esq.,'s letter or recommendation in Exhibit 39 (and
why is such missing from Exhibit 72?) See Exhibit 57, pages 125-129.
The State Bar Court of California at such time was not concerned with
one's current state of sobriety, but, rather, whether they had consumed
even a drop of alcohol in the preceding two years, a reckless and harmful
(www.orange-papers.com) standard the twelve step zealot members in LAP
had forced upon the Bar. Regardless, the burden was not Applicant's to
demonstrate such. Attempting to have Applicant quasi-diagnosed as
having a substance abuse problem on the eve of trial does not cut, due
process wise. The Bar put on no evidence that Coughlin had any current
lack of sobriety despite Coughlin having been subject to random drug and
alcohol screening via the lies of the CBX and LAP and coercion attendant
to both altering the terms agreed to in the 7/13/04 Abeyance Stipulation
through at least April 2006, and really, right up until trial as Coughlin
was forced to take multiple drug and alcohol screenings and even
multiple liver function tests by Dr. Tucker in April 2007. Judge
McElroy's characterizing such as amounting to no evidence whatsoever of
Coughlin's current state of sobriety is evidence of a lack of due process
and error here.
Nor does the Decision account for the reports sent to LAP's Poley by
Applicant in Exhibit 39 at pages 15 and 29-30 (also, note Kagan stipulated
to entering Applicant's AA attorney sponsor's glowing letter of
recommendation at pages 16-18, which further rebuts the Decision's
assessment that applicant offered not credible evidence of his sobriety),
nor does accord lessened credibility to LAP, the CBX, and Kagan for
Exhibit 72 so curiously missing such items.
117 What does not seem to concern the Court is due process and the fact
that the State Bar did not pled such as an issue or in anyway identify such
in either its 12/11/06 Response or 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement, nor even
really make an argument related to such at the trial in this matter.
Further, the Court would not let Applicant rebut any evidence that could
be deemed to factor into such consideration.

118 The Bar failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to Applicant, such as
the entirety of the materials UNLV provided to it.
119 Actually, the Bar's Kagan ignored the court's instruction as to the fact
that the patent agent attorney distinction was a non-issue and nonstarter.
120 Again, unresolved doubts are, per California law to be resolved in
favor of the Applicant. The applicant met his initial burden of proof and
the Court here fails to find that the Bar met its to prove anything related
to substance abuse or his mental health (neither of which the Bar
actually pled as issues, rather, it pled misrepresentations or omissions
related to alleged substance abuse history only.
121 The Decision fails to specify at which deposition (as Applicant was
subjected to at least two here) much less in which answer to which
question at such.
122 The extent to which the Decision refuses to specify just what these
material omissions or misrepresentations actually were prevents one
from examining whether they were, in fact, material, or, rather, minor.
123 The Decision fails to specify incident to which alleged misconduct at
UNLV (as Applicant was subjected to at least two here) much less how
Applicant made any omission or misrepresentation in regard to his
application. Further, at other points in the Decision applicant's alleged
conduct at UNLV was deemed a non-issue, so the Decision is internally
inconsistent and vague.
124 The record in this matter clearly shows that Applicant did not receive
a DUI conviction, as such, the Decision is not supported by competent or
substantial evidence as it is clearly inaccurate. The extent to which this
inaccurate finding that some DUI conviction exists bares on so many
issues connected thereto, thoroughly undermines the accuracy of the
Decision here.
125 Again, the Decision offers nothing in the way of specificity as to just
what mental health issue there is here, much less what finding supports
such a quasi-conclusion. The Decision attempts to turn the trial into a
summary disability or disciplinary proceeding, without citing to just
what Applicant did that, say, belittled witness Officer Cho, etc.
126The Decision accords no significance or mitigation for the obvious
connection between Coughlin's being wrongfully accused of academic
dishonesty at UNLV and his being arrested (for the first time in his life)
just two weeks later outside a Las Vegas movie theater. See Exhibit 72,
page 48. Further, Exhibit 72, especially pages 48 to 73 demonstrate a great
deal of rehabilitation and character evidence in addition to establishing

much in the way of mitigation and support for the view that Applicant
never had any substance abuse disorder of any kind. See the report from
Applicant's primary care physician at Exhibit 72, page 58, which states:
The patient has exhibited no addictive behaviors and is tolerating
current regimen well and as per the information provided by Mr.
Coughlin we will provide reports as necessary. See also in Exhibit 72,
page 59, a letter attesting to Applicant's recovery by the Statewide
Coordinator for the State Bar of Nevada's Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
Program, Coe Swobe, Esq.
127 An a review of the data from actual peer review scientific studies
published in reputable academic journals as to the efficacy of Twelve Step
Facilitated (TSF) Treatment establishes that such is actually responsible
for a higher suicide rate, and greater degrees and rates of relapse and
binge drinking. Www.orange-papers.com
128 Here the Decision, in a continuing theme, fails to mention anything in
particular to support such conclusion. Just what did Applicant leave out
of his 9/28/02 CBX Application? The fact that he had not yet begun to
work at places, or incurred alleged debts, or allegedly been terminated
from some employment, or later been convicted of dry reckless driving
that he would later update the CBX about? Apparently the Decision is
referring to such Application not disclosing some alleged substance abuse
problem. However, see Applicant's own twelve step enthusiast father's
testimony at his 6/21/02 formal hearing before the State Bar of Nevada's
Admissions Committee wherein such father makes no mention of any
alleged substance abuse problem. See Applicant's father's testimony in
Exhibit 14, which the CA Bar curiously sought to withdraw from the
exhibits it filed with the court well in advance of the trial and which
Judge McElroy claimed to have already read by the time of trial.
Further, by UNLV's Associate Dean's response to a CBX inquiry in
Exhibit 18 there is further proof that Applicant did not believe himself to
have any substance abuse problem at the time of his Exhibit 2 3/19/03
update to the CBX the Decision bases its conclusion that Applicant made
misrepresentations (or lacked candor) regarding some alleged history of
alcoholism on. In Exhibit 18, Assoc. Dean Smith admitted the Dean
recently received a telephone call from Mr. Coughlin's father indicating
Mr. Coughlin has a chemical dependency. If Applicant's own twelve step
zealot of a father is not testifying to the Nevada Bar on 6/21/02 that
Applicant then had some history of substance abuse, and the father is only
calling UNLV's Dean close in time to 3/18/03 (and after the dubious
1/23/03 DUI arrest by Officer George) to allege such, then how could the
Bar have possibly shown by clear and convincing evidence that Applicant
made any misrepresentation in his Exhibit 2 3/19/03 update to the CBX or
that Applicant committed a material omission in his 9/28/02 CBX
Application in Exhibit 1 by failing to, what, proclaim himself and
alcoholic (with all his lack of training to even make such a quasidiagnosis)?
Judge McElroy fails to identify why she believes Applicant's
statements in the Ex. 2 3/19/03 letter to CBX were misrepresentations or
material omissions rather then viewing his statements in the Ex. 12
7/8/04 informal conference to be misrepresentations. Or, better yet, why
Judge McElroy does not view all such statements to be completely
understandable and related to infinitely vague and subjective subject
matter concerning intensely personal material? Judge McElroy does not
indicate why she did not find Applicant's statements at the 7/8/04
informal conference were exaggerations (or historical re-branding given
the time it can take for a cult's teaching to fully sink in) of the extent (and
genesis or chronology) of his then recovery from the spiritual disease
concept of alcoholism his father had been heaping on him since dragging
Applicant to AA meetings when he was as young as three years old (as
testified to in Exhibit 57, page 33 (with such attached to Kagan's 3/20/07
Motions to Compel), also see Exhibit 70 page 13: "And I come from an
environment where, you know I've had AA kind of force-fed to me
throughout my life from an early- a very early age...").
At the 7/8/04 informal conference Applicant merely indicated (and not
under oath): on January 1, 2002, I became a sober member of Alcoholics
Anonymous. Can the CBX's Mark J. Decastro's pretentious initial
question at the 7/8/04 Informal Conference really be said to be demanding
anything less than a I went down to the river and put my feet in the
water and had a spiritual conversion sort of answer? Was applicant just
trying to give the CBX what they demanded? Is that so bad? Did it all go
awry once the unstable, erratic zealot twelve step true believers with an
ax to grind with the LAP flew just a bit to close to the sun in attempting
to skip medical school (much less residency) and go straight to rewriting
real physician's prescriptions?
Further, the twelve step zealotry seems to have permeated the DRE
sphere in which Officer George resides:
http://www.decp.org/experts/12steps.htm "The 12-Step DRE Protocol
The DREs utilize a 12-step process to assess their suspects:"
What exactly does it mean to be a sober member of AA? Does that

mean one is serious? Does it mean they have not had even a molecule of
alcohol enter there system in any way since becoming so? See LAP's (and
Exhibit 72 reveals the extent of dishonesty from LAP and Poley or the
CBX as a good deal of the communications between Coughlin and LAP
were scrubbed therefrom, particularly the ones were Poley took to using
31 question marks in a row in a display of her awesome professionalism, or
whether she attempted to alienate Applicant from his then attorney and
engage in ex parte coercive contacts with Applicant in connection
therewith) there then outrageous policies telling accomplished grown
adults (many of whom went into the law due to a respect for personal
liberties) what sort of mouthwash they could use (or poppy seed muffins
they could eat) due to the scientifically sound fact that they would
obviously become stark raving drunkards due to the powerlessness
(which is something all cults attempt to inculcate in their subjects, along
with guilt induction, here re-branded as character defects by the twelve
step oeuvre ) they, of course, were doomed to (for life, no less, even Dr.
Tucker tells us that) over alcohol and John Barleycorn?
A sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a completely vague
phrase. See Exhibit 70, page 8 of the deposition transcript therein for the
following exchange: Q. Are you a member of Alcoholics Anonymous? A
I'm not sure what you mean by "member". Q. Do you attend Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings? A. I have gone to some. See, also, page 19 of Ex. 70:
"Q. Mr. Coughlin, you can either answer the question or not answer the
question. And if you don't answer the question, you can surely object it. At
the time of the informal conference, was the statement that you were a
sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002 true? A. I
don't think that's a statement that can be characterized as true or false. Q.
Explain that. A Well, for one, there is not a membership list in AA, okay?
You don't pay dues. You don't apply. It is not something where there is a
membership committee that rejects your application. It's not something
that is treated in that way. Q. I asked you a question of whether or not
that statement was true at the time that you made it. A. Um-hmm. Q. And
your answer is, it can't be true or false? A. In a sense, yes."
See, also, page 20 of Ex. 70: "Q. Were you a sober member of Alcoholics
Anonymous as of January 1st, 2002? A Well, I don't think there's a
membership role in Alcoholics Anonymous, so I don't know that anybody
is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. Q. This is your language, Mr.
Coughlin. You called yourself a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Do you understand that? A Um-hmm. Q. What was your understanding of
what "sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous" meant at that time? A

Someone who is not drinking, i.e., sober, and who is going to Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings, maybe reading some of the literature." Clearly,
Applicant did not define sober member of AA as someone who had any
duty to report anything to the CBX, nor did the CBX Application so
require such, nor was such statement a misrepresentation when viewed
with the statements in the 3/19/03 Applicant letter to CBX in Ex. 2. It is a
testament to the rabid cult promotion tactics of Twelve Step groups,
members of which whom clearly infiltrated the CBX (Applicant
recognizes names on the CBX letterheads from the relevant times herein
of noted twelve step zealots) and LAP and exerted massive influence over
the State Bar Court that applicants feel pressured to participate in them
even when they do not feel they have or had any substance abuse problem.
Ex. 39, Page 15, Applicant's letter to LAP: December 27th. 2004 Dear
Ms. Poley, Please accept this letter as a narrative relating to my recovery
from alcohol use. I have remained sober during the entirety of the
abeyance period.. Why does Judge McElroy accept hearsay testimony and
document from the Bar but not to support Coughlin's sobriety?
Also, in Exhibit 39, at pages 35-36, is a letter from Coe Swobe, Esq.,
whom was then the Statewide Coordinator of the State Bar of Nevada's
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers program, which stated: He has informed
me that he has been clean and sober since February 1, 2003. I have no
reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's recovery with other
members of the legal profession who are members of Lawyers Concerned
for Lawyers in Nevada and we concluded that Zach Coughlin is doing the
right things to foster and build a solid program for recovery from the
disease of a1cohol and drug abuse. I believe, from my observation of Zach's
performance and attitude over the past two years, that if he continues on
his present path of abstaining from alcohol and drugs, regularly attends
A.A. meetings and closely associates with other recovering members of the
disease of alcohol and drug abuse, he will not relapse.
Page 32 of Ex. 70: "Do you drink any alcohol at all? A No."
There was plenty of evidence that Applicant did not, at the time of
trial, have anything in the way of a substance abuse problem that would
impede his ability to practice law. The insistence by the Bar and Court in
mining the territory of exactly when Applicant's last consumption of
alcohol was served no purpose whatsoever than to attempt to gain points
on some impeachment grounds. This is an applicant whom to this day has
never been convicted of a DUI. There are thousands of attorneys, judges,
and applicants in California whom have. Yet all this bluster. For what?
Further, Kagan's presentation to the court of photographs allegedly

taken of the interior of Applicant's apartment is grounds for a mistrial.
It is plainly inaccurate for the Decision to assert there is no evidence
in the record of Applicant's current sobriety. Ex. 70, page 7: "Q. What
about after your arrest on January 7th, 2003? Did you ever have any
alcohol after that date? A Not that I remember." Applicant is not
required to hold as sacrosanct his sobriety date and carry around a
medal in commemoration of it and otherwise obsessively define himself
for the rest of his life in relation thereto. Nor is he required to define
himself as a failure should such sobriety date change. Its simply not
everybody's bag. To many it is demeaning and ineffective or pointless at
best.
Exhibit 72, Dr. Tucker's hallowed report, contains more evidence of the
fact that there was no alcohol or other substance abuse issue worthy of
addressing in this trial: go February 2003 after his DUI arrest, and he
stated that he has not had any alcohol since that time. Page 52, of
Exhibit 72 in Applicant's July 2005 report to LAP: I have been sober since
January 28th, 2003. If hearsay in Exhibit 12 from the 7/8/04 informal
conference is admitted to prove the truth of the matter, why not this?
129 And see Applicant's own beloved twelve step enthusiast father here
calling the Dean of Applicant's law school in early 2003 to proclaim that
the Applicant had a chemical dependency problem (see Exhibit 18). This
at a time when the Applicant was 26 years old and had never been found
guilty of any crime beyond a dry reckless driving conviction, and whom
had never been found to have committed any academic misconduct and
had just graduated from law school and passed three of the supposedly
more difficult bar exams.
130 T99: Q: Mr. Coughlin I am asking about statements you made at the
informal conference in July 8th, 2004, on that date you made the
statement I'm a sober- I've been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous
since January 1st, 2002, correct? A: I believe so. Q: Yet, you don't include
that language in this letter did you? This language this letter that is
exhibit 2 page 2. A: You can start going and not really feel you belong
there. You can start going and not really be on board with it. You can just
be going to see what you think about it, you know, and then, after the fact,
say well okay I've been going, I wasn't drinking, so yeah, I guess I didn't
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.

131 The Decision fails to actually specify a date, or even a rough estimate,
of just when in the past applicant had alcohol abuse problems, which is
sort of significant considering one of the main basis for denying the
application, and one of the only instances where the Decision found the
Bar met its burden of proof where the Decision found the Bar presented
clear and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented his
relationship with alcohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the
committee by deeming a statement in Applicant's 3/19/03 letter to CBX
("I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties and have never been
more than a social drinker...) to be a misrepresentation. Why not deem a
statement Applicant made at the 7/8/04 Informal Conference to be a
misrepresentation (noting that at in such 7/8/04 statement applicant for
the first time admitted to having a history of alcohol abuse and been a
member of AA since January 1, 2002)? Why does Judge McElroy decide
one is a misrepresentation rather than the other? Further, why could
they both not be true?
Regardless, the Bar itself disagreed with Judge McElroy's finding that
being required to attend 8 AA meetings incident to the dry reckless
driving plea deal or then attending AA meetings was tantamount to being
enrolled in or having been referred to treatment program for drug or
alcohol abuse. See, Exhibit 70, page 26:10-12: "A: I going to an AA meeting
treatment for alcohol abuse? Q: No, Mr. Coughlin".
There is scant evidence in this matter that Applicant ever had any
alcohol abuse disorder, much less alcoholism. See the Bar's utter fail to
rebut that found in Exhibit 70, page 12, line 20-24 :" Q; So how would you
characterize your relationship alcohol? A: I don't drink alcohol. I haven't
drank alcohol in a long time. My mother and my sister both do not think I
am alcoholic...". See, also, Exhibit 70 pages 14-15, 54, 55.
One can have never been more than a social drinker and still have
been a member of AA. There was not evidence or argument put on by
the Bar to support a different conclusion. There was no evidence put on to
support the view that one conclusively has a history of alcohol abuse
just because they have been a member of AA. People can be members of
AA (whatever that means) for any numbers of reasons (including because
they felt coerced into joining such a dubious twelve step cult by the
members thereof whom have clawed their way into positions of power in
this sphere in order to force their troubling, misguided at best, views in
sheep's clothing upon the masses), many of which have nothing
whatsoever to do with whether they ever had alcoholism or any history
of alcohol abuse. The fact that Judge McElroy thinks these two
statements, with nothing more, prove the Bar met a clear and convincing
burden of proof standard demonstrates error.
Similar to the two letters of 2/23/03 to the California and Nevada Bars,
the Decision fails to identify which statement was the misrepresentation,
seemingly just relying on the vague idea that both could not possibly be
true. But such is a logical fallacy and, regardless, not supported by
evidence.
132 It is error for Judge McElroy to proclaim Applicants engaged in any
untruthfulness and then completely failed to identify what exactly he
had failed to be truthful about and upon what evidence and findings such
conclusion is based.
133 Here, the Decision stops short of referring to such as past acts of moral
turpitude, in a seeming admission that there was none.
134 Considering the tenor of the attempts at gotcha moments the Bar's
Kagan continually persisted in, Applicant's testimony that he could not
recall, but was not sure whether or not a single molecule of alcohol had
entered his system at any point since 2003 was entirely understandable
and not in any way deliberately evasive. If anything, it displayed
candor, as one could have simply testified that they had not consumed any
alcohol without truly being sure, given the extent to which alcohol is in so
many products that most do not realize it is in. Regardless, the ridiculous
superstition and belittling junk science twelve step beliefs underlying
Kagan's questions about whether Applicant had even kept any alcohol
in his residence at any point in the past four years should never have been
given the gravitas they were. The Decision simply ought have to actually
cite to or at least describe just what testimony it found to be so, and state
why.
135 Judge McElroy takes to defining misconduct as anything she finds
objectionable rather than some act that the Bar has met its burden of
proof to prove violated a Rule of Professional Conduct.
136 Judge McElroy references nothing in the record to support her
conclusory view because there is not anything in the record to support
such.
137Actually, as to all three alleged instances of misrepresentations here,
such are practically isolated given all allegations are drawn from a one
month period in 2003 following Coughlin getting arrested for a DUI and
fired from the Sacramento law firm he had just moved from Las Vegas to
begin working for, at which point he moved back to Reno. The letters of
2/23/03 to either state bar and the update of 3/19/03 to CBX from the
entirety of what the Decision's conclusion that any misrepresentations

occurred is based on. Three letters in a one month period of great tumult
is hardly a pattern drawn out over years. A disturbing lack of empathy or
understanding was shown her by either the CBX or Judge McElroy.
Further, all the statements in these letters concern quite vague,
subjective, and abstract concepts. Additionally, why no finding that
Coughlin's statements regarding the DUI arrest at the informal
conference transcribed in Exhibit 12 were misrepresentations as well?
More internal inconsistency in the Decision.
138 The record reveals some of the alleged obligations are not even
judgments, such as the summary eviction orders that Kagan misled the
court to believe were money judgments. Further, the disputed debts in
Applicant's credit report are in most instances only a few months old.
Additionally, it is error for this Court to purport Applicant's providing a
copy of his credit report to the Bar in the 2/15/07 update was somehow
proof of a lack of candor. Applicant did not affirm such debts, rather, he
went above and beyond in providing the Bar a copy of his credit report an
the opportunity to investigate such alleged debts itself. It is error to ask
this Court to litigate mere alleged debts that are not even very old, all in
a setting where the misconduct of the CBX and LAP clearly obliterated
Applicant's ability to earn money during the five year period at issue.
There is insufficient evidence in the record to prove such obligations
exists in the first place, much less that they had not been sufficiently
satisfied.
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
al
1
2
3

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
4
5
6
7
REVIEW DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO
8
9
10
FOR ADMISSION
11
ZACHARY BARKER
12
COUGHLIN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
The undersigned wishes to make clear at the outset of this
filing his tremendous respect for Judge McElroy, the State Bar Court,
the CBX, LAP, the OCTC, Ms. Kagan, the State Bar of California, and
the others involved in this matter prior to setting forth the basis for
this appeal. Applicant previously sent in a check to have this Court's
Clerk order the transcript prepared, but such has yet to be done. A
Transcript of the Trial in this matter is attached in Exhibit 1.
26
27
28
Trial Transcript pages 453:25-454:5: "Mr. Coughlin: ...I

agreed to certain things with the LAP program or with this
1
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bar that were related to monitoring recovery from alcohol

abuse- Judge McElroy: Well, if you had complied with the
program, we wouldn't even be here, okay?"
T454:14-28: "Judge McElroy: Okay, but that is why you
are here. And you could have presented evidence in regard to
that, and you haven't. Mr. Coughlin: In regard to what?
Judge McElroy: To LAP. To why you didn't complete LAP.
You could have put that on as your case. Mr. Coughlin: I
don't even know what- Have we even discussed what I
supposedly didn't complete in LAP? Have we ever
enunciated that?
T446: Judge McElroy: They are experts in the issue of
whether you have been terminated from LAP and that is an
issue here, but Dr. Tucker doesn't know, other than the fact
that you have been terminated. Mr. Coughlin: So it is
whether or not, or is it why I was terminated? Judge
McElroy: Why? Whether? Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so is this
going to why? Judge McElroy: Don't argue with me. Ask the
next question."
For this insistence that whether or why Applicant didn't
complete LAP is the only real issue in this case, the Decision spends
essentially all of it's 22 pages avoiding that issue altogether.
Judge McElroy permitted the Bar's rebuttal of Applicant's prima
face case (which itself was permitted only 13 pages) to consist of 423
pages worth of testimony in the transcript (and that is in light of the
Court refusing Applicant to conduct any cross-examination therein of
25
26
27
himself). Coughlin was permitted 37 pages worth of transcript to put

on his rebuttal of the Bar's rebuttal of Applicant's prima face case.
28
2
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
Judge McElroy ordered Applicant's rebuttal of the Bar's rebuttal be

limited to 37 pages where she permitted the Bar's rebuttal to utilize 423
3
4
5
pages of the transcript. And there still is not evidence in the record to
support the Decision here.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR APPEAL:

1. Should Applicant be Granted a License to Practice Law in
California?
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a de novo review of the Decision by Judge McElroy, whom
found that applicant currently lacks the requisite good moral
character necessary for admission to the practice of law.
III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
CBX delayed Applicant's application after taking issue with a
law school academic dishonesty investigation for which Applicant was
cleared of any wrongdoing and an arrest that was dismissed (that
applicant reported despite such not being required), and a dry reckless
driving conviction.1
25
26
27
After Applicant informed the Committee at an informal

conference that he had attended some Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
28
3
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
the Committee required2 that the Applicant sign an Abeyance

Stipulation agreeing to a waiver of confidentiality and release of
3
4
5
information while his recovery from alcohol abuse be monitored by

an agent from the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Such LAP agent, the CBX's letter indicated would monitor his
recovery and would submit reports during the abeyance period to the
moral character analyst who will be monitoring his abeyance", which
the CBX indicated would end six months from the signing of the
Abeyance Stipulation. Applicant promptly signed the required
stipulation.3
The LAP failed to send any such report until the very end of the
six month abeyance period as originally defined in the purported letter
from CBX in Exhibit 554. The LAP agent then later misrepresented the
date of Applicant's initial contact5 with the LAP program, in an
attempt to extend the six month abeyance out as long as possible in
retaliation6 for Applicant's taking prescribed medications the LAP's
twelve step true believers did not agree with his being prescribed.
25
26
27
The LAP then attempted to coerce applicant to extend his

abeyance period with the CBX so that he may make another attempt to
28
4
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
become compliant and perhaps face his disease and begin his recovery7
despite Applicant having complied with all terms in an onerous
3
4
5
Participation Plan8 (which went well beyond the scope of the

monitoring called for by the CBX Abeyance Stipulation) insisted upon
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
by the LAP. Applicant fulfilled all conditions of any agreements or

stipulations with both the LAP and CBX.
The Office Chief Trial Counsel's Kagan did not call anyone from
LAP or the CBX as a witness, and never had the hearsay and double
hearsay documents she offered as exhibits authenticated 9. The LAP
never indicated applicant had been terminated from participation in
the program for cause. Rather, the LAP simply finally admitted that
it had milked the six month abeyance term out for as long as it was
willing to push the envelope. CBX allegedly purported 10 to recommend
denying Applicant's application, but apparently refused to indicate in
what way applicant had demonstrated any failure to satisfy the terms
of his abeyance agreement with the committee, much less demonstrate
any lack of candor. The CBX also purportedly cited Applicant's dry
25
26
27
reckless driving conviction as a factor. The OCTC proceeded to trial

arguing a grab bag of half thought out, poorly researched, carpet
28
5
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
bombed accusations that its own Response to Applicant's Application

for Admission indicated it would not assert at trial.
At the very start of the trial before the Bar had proved the
4
5
existence thereof whatsoever, Judge McElroy declared that the
6
7
8
9
10
applicant is going to have to furnish enough evidence that he has good

moral character which would include evidence that he has addressed
any alcohol abuse issues.11
After the Court ruled the Applicant met his burden to prove a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
prima facie case12 that he possessed the requisite character for

admission, the Bar failed to put on any evidence from the CBX or LAP
to prove if, much less how, Applicant had failed to comply with any
agreement with either. Applicant offered a great wealth of
rehabilitative, candor, cooperation, and character evidence 13 despite
there being no real need to given no acts of moral turpitude were ever
proven and there was no evidence that Applicant had a substance abuse
issue of any variety that would prevent him from suitably practicing
law.
25
26
27
The Decision in this matter ignores the fact that the State Bar of
Nevada and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United
28
6
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
States Patent Office had already conducted thorough moral character

evaluations and admitted Applicant by the time of trial in this
3
4
5
matter.14 Such Decision also ignores the fact that another court had not
found Applicant guilty of a DUI, the law school never formally
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
disciplined Applicant in any way as to any matter, the misdemeanor

movie theater arrest was dismissed, etc., etc. There was a complete lack
of faith or credit given to the decisions of finder's fact that came before
it by the Decision.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. There is No Competent or Substantial Evidence to
Support the Decision, Substantial Due Process Rights Were Denied the
Applicant, and Prejudicial Errors Were Committed.
The Decision concluded the Bar met its burden as to three alleged
areas of misrepresentation and a grab bag of omissions. Such included:
1) applicant misrepresented the reason for his termination from law
firm, 2) that applicant misrepresented his relationship with alcohol
and treatment for alcohol abuse to the committee, 3) that applicant
misrepresented the events surrounding his DUI arrest in his update to
25
26
27
the committee in Exhibit 2, and 4) that applicant made material

omissions from his application. There is no competent or substantial
28
7
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
evidence to support any of the above, and as to all substantial due

process rights were denied the Applicant and prejudicial errors were
3
4
5
6
committed.
1) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent the Reason for His
Termination From a Law Firm
The Decision here strains credulity in purporting to find a
8
9
10
misrepresentation15 was made with respect to alleged inconsistencies

between Applicant's reports to the Bar's of California and Nevada the
11
12
13
reasons for the termination of his employment at the Schuering law

firm.
14
15
16
Applicant's February 23, 2003 update16 to the CBX did not

attribute the source of opinions concerning his termination from a
17
18
19
Sacramento law firm contained therein to anyone in particular. 17

Likewise with the letter of 2/23/03 to the State Bar of Nevada. 18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Decision notes:

applicant told the California State Bar that the law
firm let him go because of his recent arrest. But on the same
day, he told the Nevada State Bar that he was let go because
he was not licensed in Nevada and that the Supreme Court's
deferment order was too far out for them to keep him
employed. The court finds that these discrepancies evidence
a lack of candor.
28
8
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
Discrepancies do not rise to the level of misrepresentations,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
especially where the Decision admits Applicant's later updates 19

reconcile any such alleged discrepancies. Further, the Decision ought
be required to determine which letter contains a misrepresentation, if
any, rather than simply assert there are discrepancies between the
two20. One, there is arguably no discernible difference between these
two assertions. The Decision fails to note that in both the
correspondences to both the Nevada21 and California bar he also
reported that he had just recently been arrested for a DUI, which
obviously changes the import of the Exhibit 19 letter to CBX sufficient
to dilute any discrepancies between it and the Exhibit 15 letter to the
Nevada Bar.
Two, either letter's statements fail to specify from whose
viewpoint such characterizations are made. From the employers? From
the employee? From common sense? From third parties? Neither the
CBX or Nevada Applications prompt applicants to specify from whose
25
26
27
vantage point the rationale for leaving employment is to come. They

are hardly mutually exclusive sentiments, as a DUI arrest and the
28
9
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
delay in getting a law license issue are commonly considered

interchangeable, especially vis a vis being terminated by a law firm.
3
4
5
Additionally, there is a due process deprivation here given the

lack of notice and opportunity to be heard as to this issue. This reach of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
an issue was not even mentioned in the Bar's 12/11/06 Committee of Bar
Examiners' Response to Application for Admission as a basis for
opposing applicant's admission nor in the CBX's 6/7/06 letter
recommending denial of the Application for Admission. How fair is it
to base this Decision on this unnoticed, unpled issue with which
Coughlin was afforded no real opportunity to be heard 22 and for which
the Bar provided no evidence to demonstrate any of these various
assertions to be false? The issue, largely through Judge McElroy's own
indications that any alleged misrepresentation thereto was a non-issue,
was barely addressed at either trial23, in closing either side's closing
argument24, or in the two depositions Applicant was required to submit
to, nor in the informal conference with the CBX 25.
Further, Coughlin was employed at Schuering, Zimmerman &
25
26
27
Scully from 1/6/03 to 2/14/0326 and that the Nevada Supreme Court
entered an order deferring its decision on his application for a license
28
10
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
to practice law on 12/18/02. Coughlin provided the Schuering firm a

copy of the Nevada deferment order upon becoming aware of it upon
3
4
5
starting work at the firm. The firm did not fire him then. Coughlin's
reported his DUI arrest of 1/23/03 to the Schuering firm prior to being
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
fired. The firm fired him on 2/14/0327. Such does not mean that the
DUI arrest was not a cause of the firing, and such does not mean that
the DUI arrest did not make the specter of Coughlin getting licensed in
either California or Nevada anytime soon enough to be acceptable to
the Schuering firm. As such, there was no misrepresentation
whatsoever.
Further, the bar did not put on not evidence to refute Coughlin's
assertions. No testimony or even hearsay documentation from anyone
from the Schuering firm whatsoever. As such, there is no clear and
convincing evidence that such assertions by Coughlin are reporting
why he believes he was fired, or why he was told he was being fired, or
what the Schuering firm told Coughlin to tell the Bar was the reason
he was being fired, etc.
25
26
27
2) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent His Relationship

With Alcohol and Treatment for Alcohol Abuse to the Committee
28
11
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
The Decision further, incredibly, finds a lack of candor or

credibility where the applicant self reported that he had attended
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to the Committee, where it notes:

the committee presented clear and convincing
evidence that applicant misrepresented his relationship
with alcohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the
committee. In his March 19, 2003 update to the application,
applicant responded to the committee's request for
information about his relationship with drugs and alcohol
as follows: "I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties
and have never been more than a social drinker ... I have not
been referred to any treatment programs for drug or alcohol
abuse, nor am I current enrolled in treatment . "
In fact, as part of applicant's nolo contendere plea to a
violation of California Vehicle Code 23103 on March 11, 2003,
applicant as ordered to attend eight Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) meetings on June 10, 200328... In addition, at the
informal conference with the committee on July 8, 2004,
applicant for the first time admitted to having a history of
alcohol abuse29 and been a member of AA since January 1,
2002.30
Therefore, the court finds that applicant lacked candor
in his March 19, 2003 update, given that he was ordered to
attend eight AA meetings and that he had a history of
alcoholism. When applicant admitted to alcohol abuse31 at
the informal conference, the committee advised applicant
that it would not recommend his admission but offered to
hold his application in abeyance until January 13, 2005, so
that the committee could evaluate his recovery from
abuse.32
The Decision is internally inconsistent where it purports
Applicant's update in Exhibit 2 of 3/19/03 to be a misrepresentation,
28
12
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
yet fails to identify Applicant's Answer33 to Question 14.5 Chemical

Dependency (wherein he checked No) in his 9/28/02 CBX
3
4
5
Application to be a misrepresentation or omission. Applicant should

not be expected to interpret CBX's Crary's 3/5/03 request to Applicant
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to require more than the CBX Application itself calls for. Regardless,
even if Crary's letter requires (or requests) more, Applicant's
statements in his Ex. 2 3/19/03 letter were truthful.
Applicant did not admit to alcohol abuse at the Informal
Conference. Further, there is no support in the record for the finding
that Coughlin had a history of alcoholism 34 at the time of the 3/19/03
update to CBX (much less that he himself was aware35 of such or
thought so) or for viewing being ordered to attend 8 AA meetings 36 in a
plea deal to be a referral to a treatment program for substance abuse
(much less for finding Applicant had the requisite scienter
requirement37 to make his statements regarding such a
misrepresentation)38.
Applicant never admitted to having a history of alcohol abuse.
25
26
27
Regardless, there is no evidence in the record for just when Applicant
began to have a history of alcohol abuse, much less alcoholism
28
13
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
(much less marijuana39 abuse disorder), much less when, if ever,

Applicant began to know that himself. Such approach combines the
3
4
5
violation of one's right against self incrimination with demanding the

unlicensed practice of medicine. The Bar's own expert, Dr. Tucker, did
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
not provide any testimony as to when such point occurred and no

evidence is found in the record to support the view that Applicant had a
history of alcoholism as of the time of his 3/19/03 letter to CBX. 40
At trial in this matter, Applicant testified that he did not believe
being ordered to attend AA meetings was tantamount to a referral to a
treatment program41. Applicant further testified and put on evidence
that he was not sure if he has ever had any sort of substance abuse
problem.42 The Bar put on no evidence to support any contention that
such is tantamount to such.
At such Informal Conference Applicant stated: on January 1,
2002 I became a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous. I had a slip in
January of the following year, culminating in my arrest. At trial in
this matter, Applicant described the then process of evolution his
25
26
27
thinking had undertaking with respect to his relationship to Twelve

Step programs, indicating that he had started trying them out in early
28
14
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
2002, though indicating he had been subjected to a lifetime of Twelve

Step indoctrination and or harassment by the same family member, his
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
father43, whom called44 the Dean of his law school in 2003 and claimed
that Applicant had a chemical dependency issue.
3) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent the Events Surrounding
His DUI Arrest in his Update to the Committee in his Exhibit 2 Update
The Decision found :
"The committee presented clear and convincing
evidence that applicant misrepresented the events45
surrounding his January 2003 DUI arrest in his March 19,
2003 update to the committee46. As previously found, in
January 2003, applicant was arrested for driving a motor
vehicle under the influence of marijuana and later pled
nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code
section 23103, reckless driving...47
...Applicant misrepresented the events surrounding
his arrest as evidenced by the following: 1) a urine sample
tested positive for marijuana; 2) the arresting officer noted
that applicant had bloodshot48, watery eyes, was unsteady on
his feet49 and had a strong odor 50 of marijuana emanated
(sic) from his automobile51, person and breath; and 3)
applicant's inability to perform any52 of the field sobriety
tests53 administered by the arresting officer.
Moreover, California Highway Patrol Officer Jeff
George, the arresting officer in that incident, testified at
this hearing that applicant was clearly 54 under the
influence of marijuana when he was arrested. The officer
testified that applicant was unsteady on his feet, his gums
were coated with green pasty film and he was unable to
perform the field sobriety test.55"
28
15
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
It was error to find that the Bar met the clear and convincing
burden of proof as to such issue. The Bar's own expert witness
3
4
5
testified that such a positive urine test for marijuana could not
establish marijuana use within the four hours of arrest 56 that Officer
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
George admitted was necessary for one to be under the influence. 57

Officer George himself contracted the finding the Bar met the
clear and convincing burden where he admitted there was a mere
preponderance58 of evidence supporting his opinion that Applicant was
then under the influence of marijuana at the time of his arrest. Officer
George testified it was merely more than likely within four hours of
the time of the arrest59 that applicant had ingested marijuana (with
his failure to specify to any extent whatsoever what amount of
marijuana being further indicative of the uncertainty attendant to
marijuana DUI prosecutions). George admitted such was his standard
for whether someone was under the influence of marijuana, giving no
shrift to whether one ingested a de minimis or enormous amount of the
substance. So in the face of the Bar's own witnesses admitting their
25
26
burden of proof was not met, the Decision found such was met anyways.
27
28
16
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
Prejudicial error, a lack of due process, and a lack of competent

and or substantial evidence to support the Decision's finding here is
3
4
5
evident. Judge McElroy prohibited Applicant a legitimate opportunity

to put on evidence to rebut the plainly ridiculous claims of Officer
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
George, which included a patently absurd assertion that the black and
gray smoke one inhales while smoking the marijuana George claimed
to have smelled the freshly burnt smell of left Applicant's tongue
coated with a green pasty film. Such also included a variety of
inconsistent statements respecting the incongruous things Applicant
could do during a field sobriety test in light of the things he allegedly
could not do.60
It was error to allow Officer George to testify for the Bar as to
how many DUI arrests he had made to support a view that he had
credibility and expertise, yet to refuse to allow questioning to establish
that such a number of DUI arrests was outrageously high and
indicative of an officer gaming the system via misconduct. 61 Similarly,
it was error to permit George to testify to his training and experience
25
26
27
but then to refuse to allow any legitimate cross-examination as to

such.62
28
17
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
George's testimony was implausible, inconsistent 63 and, at times,

lacked credibility.64 Such was the case where George testified about
3
4
5
whether he grew annoyed with the Applicant's pre-arrest questions

regarding why a breath alcohol test (PAS test) was necessary.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Likewise, was Officer George's testimony that, post-arrest, he offered a

passive-aggressive Applicant65 a choice between a breath, urine, or
blood test. This, where George claims he first explained the implied
consent testing law in California,66 and claims Applicant thereafter
chose to take a urine test rather than a breath test, even where
Applicant's post-arrest preliminary alcohol screening breath test
indicated a negligible reading for alcohol.
Contrary to his testimony, Officer George did not explain to
Applicant California's implied consent law.67 George's testimony that
he offered a clearly not even close to drunk Applicant the choice of
taking a breath test that would not reveal use of marijuana, only for
Applicant to implausibly then skip68 straight to choosing a urine test69,
combined with the highly unusual and implausible administration
25
26
27
thereafter of a PAS breath test using a preliminary alcohol

screening device (post-arrest, not less) all adds up to less than fully
28
18
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
credible testimony by Officer George, and prevents a finding that

Applicant was misrepresenting whatever it is 70 the Decision purports
3
4
5
him to have misrepresented.71

It was error to base the Decision on Officer George's testimony
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
purporting to have smelled freshly burnt marijuana then refuse

Applicant an opportunity to conduct any real cross-examination on
that issue.72
The Decision is unsound where it finds Applicant made
misrepresentations regarding the 1/23/03 DUI arrest merely because
his testimony differed73 from that of the arresting officer.74
4) Applicant Did Not Make Material Omissions From His
Application
17
18
19
The Decision notes: "The committee presented clear and

convincing evidence that applicant made material omissions75 from his
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
application..." then inaccurately describes Applicant allegedly

receiving mere notices of failures to appear76 as being "convictions" for
such, which they plainly are not, and as such, any alleged nonreporting77 of such fixed fix it tickets, basically, is not evidence of
anything sufficient to consider in denying an application for
admission. Further, speeding tickets are not "convictions", they are
19
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
citations. There was no evidence put on by the Bar to establish that

speeding tickets are traffic citations, and the limiting language in
3
4
5
the CBX referencing reporting reckless driving, etc., implies such need
not be reported.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kagan's arguing such are convictions in her Pre-Trial Statement

and at trial78, is misconduct similar to her arguing summary evictions
were civil actions that included money judgments that Applicant not
only failed to report, but was in default on. The zombies in 28 Days
Later think Kagan is out of control and needs to slow down.
The Decision adopts Kagan's inaccurate characterization of
summary eviction orders as judgments, then inaccurately indicates
Applicant had yet to make any payment on those or the small claims
judgment79, all without citing to anything in the record to support
such findings. The Decision then inaccurately 80 finds that Applicant
admitted to never having reported the small claims action and

judgment to the CBX, despite Applicant testifying to the contrary and
being improperly prohibited from calling Kagan as a witness in that
25
26
27
regard, and where Kagan violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in

failing to substitute out as counsel upon such becoming required of her.
28
20
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
The rest of the purported material omissions 81 were either not

omissions, were actually reported, or were clearly not material.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ASSORTED OTHER PROBLEMATICS ASPECTS OF DECISION:

The OCTC made misrepresentations about the length of the
Abeyance Agreement and what privacy rights Applicant would be
required to waived by signing such, and concerning Applicant's alleged
termination for cause by either the CBX or LAP. 82
LAP did not provide either Applicant or the CBX any indication
that Applicant had violated any agreement with it, and certainly did
not do anything even close to that by the 1/15/05 expiration of the six
month Abeyance Agreement. The Abeyance Agreement indicates that
only a failure to comply with such during the six month term thereof
would be admissible in a State Bar Court hearing. The purported
termination from LAP or alleged failure to comply with the Abeyance
Agreement thereby occurred outside of such six month term, and is
therefore inadmissible per agreement with CBX.
There is nothing in the record to support such a view that
Applicant violated any agreement with LAP. Exhibit 683 itself
mentions only recommendations. Yet, Judge McElroy admitted on
the record that there was nothing in Applicant's past to justify the
denial of his application, but, rather that the only reason this trial was
even being held (in an admission of the illegitimacy of all the Bar's
other claims) was due to LAP allegedly terminating Applicant from its
program.84
The Decision notes (in reliance upon an unauthenticated
document containing double hearsay) that on June 7, 2006, in Exhibit
55, the Committee advised applicant that it declined to recommend his
admission, purportedly citing as a basis a variety of things that were
plainly inaccurate (such as Applicant's allegedly being disciplined
while a law student by UNLV, lack of candor, and failure to satisfy the
terms of his abeyance agreement with the committee 85, none of which
are true) or preposterous, such as basing such on a 2003 conviction for
dry reckless driving.
The Decision then inaccurately notes: the LAP Evaluation
Committee met to review applicant's participation in LAP. The LAP
21
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Evaluation Committee decided that applicant had not successfully

complied with their recommendation and thus86, terminated applicant's
The Bar's Kagan committed misconduct in the affidavits she filed
in Support of a 3/20/07 Motion to Compel Answers regarding
Applicant's alleged alcohol issues where she swore: 1. ...All statements
made herein are true and correct and if called upon, I could and would
competently87 testify thereto. ... On July 8, 2004, applicant participated
in an informal hearing with the Committee. At that hearing, applicant
claimed to have an addiction to alcohol,88 which he contended caused
89
some of the conduct investigated90 by the Committee in relation to its
moral character determination. 3. On July 19, 2004, pursuant an
agreement between applicant and the Committee, applicant executed a
Stipulation ... wherein he agreed to have his recovery from alcohol
addiction91 monitored by State Bar of California's Lawyer's Assistance
Program ("LAP").
Further, Applicant was prohibited from putting the complete text
of the transcripts and associated files from his admissions case in
Nevada, or even reading portions thereof into the record as Kagan was
permitted to, by Judge McElroy's rulings at trial, which limited (T175176) the time Applicant was allowed to put on evidence and make
argument and refused to rule on many of the exhibits and portions
thereof that the Bar withdrew at trial that Applicant himself offered 92
in a dramatically unfair manner considering the extreme leeway and
length of time give to the OCTC's Kagan to put on her case. 93
The Bar's Susan Ilene Kagan, Esq. did make the meritless claim
that Applicant committed some failure to disclose civil actions (and
later defaults) in arguing summary94 eviction95 cases are civil actions
or administrative proceedings requiring reporting under the
Application. Per the Justice Court Rules of Reno Township (JCRRT),
summary eviction actions are not civil actions. The Bar made a
misrepresentation in characterizing such summary evictions
proceedings (which, per both California, and Nevada law (and pretty
much all other states), may not result in monetary judgments) as
plenary unlawful detainer actions resulting in two different civil
judgments and defaults thereon and alleged multiple material
omissions in connection thereto . New York and Florida transplant
28
22
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kagan can not claim summary evictions are civil actions that may
result in monetary judgments in those states either.
Kagan's 12/11/06 Response further misrepresented in asserting
that Applicant did not update his application in any way as to the
small claims action judgment which Applicant testified as to having
updated Kagan as to in a telephone conversation. Kagan violated the
Rules of Profession Conduct in not withdrawing herself from the case
upon becoming a witness to such matter. Judge McElroy refused to
allow Applicant to call Kagan to testify to such matter at trial. 96
The Decision fails to accord any significance to Applicant's
justifiable reliance upon the advice of counsel Fishkin, who concludes
such 4/15/05 letter to CBX in Exhibits 38-39 by stating: It would be
unfair to Mr. Coughlin to require him to become a full fledged enrollee
of LAP when he is there for monitoring, not full participation.
The Decision fails to note is that the Bar's Exhibit 37 is an
incomplete (where is the Fact Sheet and other enclosures?) (in the
continuation of the theme97 of Kagan offering exhibits (see Exhibits 2 ,
7 (missing a subpoena on Applicant's former employer, Hale Lane,
likely due to the Severance Agreement being violated without a court
order), 15, 16 (much is missing from what was filed with the Court along
with the Bar's Pre-Trial Statement, and now those binders filed
therewith are no longer with the Court, but rather, the truncated
versions of many exhibits apparently are all that is left. Why?
Applicant's then Nevada attorney's Pre-Hearing Brief was filed with
the CA State Bar Court on 4/10/07 in, 37, and 41,57, 65 98 (Las Vegas
arrest report incomplete, why?) also), and 70, 5, 13, 14, and 59 she has
unethically excluded portions of) hearsay document that was not
authenticated at trial. Such does not included the enclosures the CBX's
Lawson references therein (In addition , I have enclosed a copy of the
Abeyance Policy99 that is incorporated in the stipulation. CBX
Lawson's letter to Applicant in Exhibit 37 admits that the abeyance
term ended on January 13th, 2005. It is impermissible to allow the trial
court judge here to review materials then to excise them from the
record for the appellate court's review.
Notice the dubiousness of the CBX or LAP claiming applicant
only enrolled in LAP on 6/30/05 (Exhibit 50, which the LAP failed to
ever send to applicant or his attorney, but rather sent only to the CBX,
dishonestly indicates it is a notice of initial contact per a 6/22/05
23
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
telephone intake interview despite the fact that the LAP's own
documents in Exhibit 72 establish that Applicant had already had a
wealth of contacts, interactions, and correspondences with LAP,
starting on 3/5/03, and at several points in 2004 and early 2005) and or
implying that the monitoring called for in the Abeyance Stipulation
somehow only began on 6/30/05, when Exhibit 39, page 29 is a letter
from Applicant to the LAP's Poley detailing that called for under the
Abeyance Agreement. Such is found in the 1/12/05 letter from
Applicant's then attorney Fishkin to CBX, which states: the Abeyance
time is about to expire for Mr. Coughlin. Applicant offered into
evidence all of the exhibits that the State Bar withdrew.
Similarly, see Applicant's letter of 11/30/04 to LAP's Poley in
Exhibit 39, page 15, and the lack of any evidence in the record to
demonstrate that LAP ever (see Exhibit 41) responded 100 to the
following from the Applicant: Please do not hesitate to let me know if
there is anything more I need to do to be in compliance with the
Abeyance Agreement, which calls for an agent from the LAP to
monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse during the abeyance period.
Likewise, see Exhibit 39, pages 29-30 for a similar request to LAP by
Applicant of 12/27/04. See Exhibit 42 for more evidence of LAP's
misconduct and overreaching. See Exhibit 43, which demonstrates the
dishonesty of CBX's Debra Murphy Lawson in her misrepresenting 101
what is included in the Abeyance Stipulation as somehow requiring
Applicant enroll in LAP as a full scale participant102 in such then
costly and invasive five year long program designed for those whom
had been found guilty of professional misconduct, rather than merely
calling for Applicant's recovery from alcohol abuse to be monitored by
an agent from LAP during a six month abeyance term to end on
1/15/05. See, also, Exhibit 51, which the Bar attempted to hide (though
it still persisted in its meritless arguments) once it became clear that
the LAP had engaged in improper conduct throughout its interactions
with Applicant, especially as to its refusal to recognize the length and
starting point of the abeyance term, and refusal to send the CBX the
report it was getting paid to produce.
The Decisions' failure to consider the many character letters (the
Bar's Pre-Trial Statement mentions no dispute as to the admissibility
of such character letters) (especially in Exhibit 39, pages 16-19 and 3536, 16-39 from attorneys in Nevada, including one employed by the
24
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
State Bar of Nevada; see, also Exhibit 72, page 29, the Well-being
Monitor Report from Applicant's attorney AA sponsor and co-worker
in the LAP file) evidencing Applicant's rehabilitation was prejudicial
error, especially considering the extent to which hearsay evidence was
routinely admitted when offered by the Bar. See, also, Exhibit 40, pages
3-4, and Exhibit 53 page 4, letters from Applicant's then treating
psychologist attesting to his fitness and rehabilitation through nearly
50 hours of therapy (Dr. Hunter's report in Exhibit 29 (which
enthusiastically indicates that Dr. Hunter strongly believes Applicant
is fit to practice law and has no moral or characterological
shortcoming and that his current level of functioning is excellent.
The Decision notes: applicant was completely evasive about his
alcohol abuse. He testified that he was not sure of the date of his
sobriety and whether he consumed any alcohol in the past four years..
One's not being sure of the date of their sobriety (whatever that
loaded term means) is hardly evidence of their being completely
evasive. Regardless, being completely evasive is not nearly as
significant as one simply lying about something or making a
misrepresentation, particularly given the dubious violations of
Applicant's constitutional rights here attendant to the Court ordering
him to answer such questions when clearly they are privileged.
The Decision inaccurately notes: Applicant did not present any
credible evidence on why he was terminated from LAP. On one hand, he
claimed that he did not know why he was terminated from LAP. On the
other hand, he claimed that he was terminated from LAP because he
would not let LAP jeopardize his physical well-being. In other words
applicant's reasoning is without merit. Applicant offered 103 all of the
Bar's withdrawn exhibits, which included Exhibit 52, wherein his then
attorney Fishkin writes LAP requesting clarification and instruction
as to what Applicant is being asked to do by LAP in attempts to so
comply. Kagan committed misconduct in persisting with her claims in
light of her own withdrawn exhibits, and offered nothing to rebut such
evidence, which Applicant sought admission of at trial, but Judge
McElroy appears to have refused to admit or even rule on the
admissibility on. Further, CBX never provided to applicant or his
attorney the report then attorney Fishkin's letter in Exhibit 54 of
5/26/06 indicates he understood the CBX would be providing Applicant
a copy of. The Bar failed to put on any evidence to rebut this claim.
25
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, it was error not to admit the three letters from treating
physicians attached thereto, which amounted to a refusal to allow
Applicant to rebut the Bar's claims vis a vis his interactions with the
LAP program and those as to his fitness inherent to the Dr. Tucker
testimony offered by the Bar.
For Judge McElroy to brazenly admit that she does not view
testimony from either Applicant of Dr. Tucker, or the Bar's utter
failure to put on any evidence whatsoever to support its contention that
Applicant was terminated from LAP or why he was terminated, as
credible evidence demonstrates error. That is to say nothing of her
abusive efforts to prevent Applicant from putting on any evidence in
that regard too. For what McElroy openly admitted she saw as the only
real issue in the case and reason for this matter going to trial, she
limited Applicant's right to put on evidence as to such in a preposterous
manner considering the hours and hours of court time permitted Kagan
to drone on about matters not identified in either her 12/11/06 Response
or 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement.
Applicant actually presented a wealth of credible evidence that
not only was he not terminated from LAP during any period of time in
which LAP had any such ability to do so, but that any too late attempt
by LAP was baseless, and that LAP offered nothing in the way of
support for the double hearsay contention in Exhibit 6 that such was,
implicitly, due to some failure to follow a mere recommendation.
Here, the Court simply fails to acknowledge that which it would
not let Applicant testify to (deeming the statement against interest by
LAP that it would punish Applicant for taking prescribed medications
that it felt meant he was not sober in a twelve step zealot sense
inadmissible), the fact that LAP had no justifiable reason for its
attempted termination of Applicant's participation in LAP, other than
its illegal attempts to practice medicine without a license. Further, it
is not Applicant's responsibility or burden to prove why he was
allegedly terminated from LAP. So, of course, where the Bar offered no
evidence (and failed to even have the vague and unspecified double
hearsay in Exhibit 6 authenticated), it certainly was not Applicant's
burden to rebut any such thing.
Regardless such alleged termination occurred subsequent to the
expiration of LAP's involvement per the Abeyance Stipulation. To
allow LAP to behave as a petulant child making it up as it goes along
26
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serves neither the State Bar Court,the CBX, nor the OCTC, nor does it
serve LAP. This is to say nothing of the incredible damage done to the
defense bar here, and the professional reputation of Jerome Fishkin,
Esq., given the obvious extent to which LAP, the CBX, and the OCTC
were able to alienate applicant from his attorney, with Fishkin
admitting he should probably be fired to avoid any further retaliation.
Further, Judge McElroy's minute orders make clear, despite Spevack,
that she felt it permissible to punish applicants for asserting their
constitutional rights in these regards.
"From: Jerome Fishkin (jerome@fishkinlaw.com) You moved this
message to its current location. Sent: Wed 3/15/06 10:40 AM To:
Coughlin Zach (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com) We have both received
Pam Poley's letter of March 8, 2006. Therefore, the project of writing
her is now obsolete. You have two choices as I see them. One is to accept
Poley's offer; the second is to deal directly with CBX. They both have
pros and cons. Re: Proposed Letter to Pam Poley Your relationship with
LAP has been star crossed since the beginning. I doubt that another six
months will accomplish anything for you. However, if you did do
another six months, AND if it met with their approval, your chances of
admission would be excellent. IF there were a continuation of problems,
your chances of admission would be slim. Given Poley's comments to
you about me, however, I think this option works better if you fire me
(at least for six months!).... EIther way might work; either way might
fail. I am inclined toward the second approach because it is consistent
with your actions, therefore intellectually honest. And I doubt that you
plus LAP works. That goes double if Poley continues to tell you I'm the
problem...."
The Decision then, without indicating the Committee met its
burden of proof, spends an inordinate amount of time discussing things
that were neither noticed as issues for trial by the Bar nor which was
Applicant permitted any legitimate opportunity to rebut. The Decision
inaccurately found that:
Substance Abuse and Mental: The committee
requested a forensic clinical assessment of applicant,
focusing in particular on whether he currently 104 suffers
from alcohol abuse or other drug abuse or dependency , and if
so, what if any monitoring, testing or treatment is
27
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, Dr. Douglas E. Tucker105, a board certified

physician in the field of medicine and psychiatry, examined
applicant on April 7, 2007. He reported that applicant met
the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and marijuana abuse 106
defined in the DSM-IV...He also reported that applicant
received a score of 14 on the Michigan Alcoholism Screening
Test, a diagnostic 107 questionnaire in which a score of three
points or less is considered nonalcoholic, four points is
suggestive of alcoholism, and five points or more indicates a
diagnosis of alcoholism. In addition to alcohol and
marijuana abuse, Dr. Tucker determined that applicant met
the diagnostic criteria for other psychiatric disorders 108
which contribute to his liability to abuse substances. These
included ADHD Combined Type (Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder), chronic back and neck pain,
chronic depression, and passive-aggressive and oppositionaldefiant personality traits.
Dr. Tucker could not testify as to whether applicant is
currently abusing alcohol or marijuana. ... The court is
concerned whether applicant is currently109 abusing alcohol
and marijuana such that it would impair his ability to
function as a lawyer 110and/or impact on his moral character.
Applicant was deliberately evasive111 on the issue of
alcoholism on his application, during his deposition and at
this hearing. For example, applicant was unable to tell the
court anything about his sobriety112, other than the fact that
he attended AA meetings.113 Therefore, this court cannot at
this time resolve any reasonable doubts 114 on the issue of
alcohol in applicant's favor because of his lack of candor115
and his failure to present any evidence of his current state
of sobriety116.
Moreover, applicant's mental stability concerns this
117
court . Associate Dean Christine Smith of the law school at
UNLV testified that while applicant was a student at
UNLV, she thought he had substance abuse/mental health
issues118 because applicant exhibited several instances of
irrational behavior where he escalated and misinterpreted
certain encounters. Similarly, at this hearing, applicant
28
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
repeatedly conducted himself in a most unprofessional

manner, raising sufficiently serious questions regarding his
mental condition. In particular, when he cross-examined the
witnesses, his behavior was troubling. Applicant ignored the
court's instructions119 and berated his cyber law instructor,
Tratos, as well as his school, during the testimony regarding
applicant's 2001 academic dishonesty investigation. He was
totally disrespectful, unnecessarily hostile, and downright
rude and arrogant to Highway Patrol Officer Jeff George
concerning his January 2003 DUI arrest.
And, when the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer
Won Cho was testifying about the 2001 movie theater arrest,
applicant was totally unprofessional, rude, and belligerent
towards the officer. He constantly interrupted the officer's
testimony and belittled him at every opportunity. Thus,
applicant's substance abuse and mental health stability are
at issue and unresolved.120
Next, the Decision, after spending nearly twenty pages going
through this matter issue by issue and only finding the Bar met its
burden of proof as to three alleged misrepresentations and a grab bag of
material omission, then purports to have found that the Committee
has sustained its burden of proof in rebutting the applicant's prima
facie case with respect to the following claims: applicant's lack of
candor at his deposition121 and material122 omissions from and
misrepresentations on his application regarding various issues, such as
his misconduct at UNLV123, employment history, substance abuse, DUI
conviction124, court appearances, civil actions, residential addresses,
financial obligations and mental health125.
The Decision then notes:
Applicant Has Failed to meet his burden to establish his
rehabilitation126 finding very little, if any, evidence was offered by
applicant with respect to his rehabilitation. The fact that Judge
McElroy feels very little, if any, evidence was offered is further
evidence of a lack of due process herein. Applicant offered an enormous
wealth of evidence as to his rehabilitation, even though the Bar did
not really prove Applicant did anything to support denying a law
29
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
license in the first place. As such, Applicant displayed tremendous

character in going above and beyond in persisting in the fact of this, the
most dubious of moral character witch trials127 .
The Decision indicates that applicant was constantly amending
his application due to his repeated significant omissions128 from the
application. Applicant cannot show that his repeated failure to fully
disclose information on his application was unintentional or mere
negligence. Such displays little regard for the fact that one being
abused by the twelve step zealots129, after a while, likely has no idea
what they really think130 and or what is really true, much less when
such became the case. They simply know that there is seemingly no
disagreeing with twelve step zealots.
The Decision further strains credulity where it purports that
Applicant has a heavy burden in this case. Considering the multiple
acts of misconduct without actually specifying what if anything
Applicant had done that the Bar had met its burden to prove was
misconduct. A dry reckless driving conviction is not misconduct
sufficient to create a heavy burden to show years of sustained
rehabilitation including a Mother Theresa CV.
The Decision's logical inconsistencies continue in noting: It is
clear that in the past applicant has alcohol abuse problems .131 What
little evidence applicant presented on rehabilitation with respect to
alcoholism was all self-reported. In short, there was little credible
evidence presented that applicant no longer has a substance abuse
problem.
Ironically, what little evidence there was that Applicant had
alcoholism was all self-reported too, right? So, the decision finds
Applicant's testimonial evidence form Applicant to be credible when
it is convenient and to lack any credibility whatsoever when it is not.
Certainly the DUI arrest report was not evidence of such as it noted a
negligible reading on the BAC test. None of the records offered from
UNLV supported any such accusation. It seems this is a case of an
Applicant having personality conflicts with extremely rancorous and
dubious, though politically connected people in the law school and
moral character admissions world, then being coerced into attempting
to explain such via some twelve step epiphany, only to find that such
was to include embracing the ill effects of LAP's unlicensed practice of
medicine. The Decision wishes to convict Applicant of a lack of candor
30
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
while hanging him with his own displays of candor. Regardless, the
Decision stops short of finding that the Bar met the clear and
convincing burden to prove Applicant had any issue related to alcohol
sufficient to deny his application. Ties go to the Applicant under
California law.
The Decision states: Whether an individual is a fit and proper
person to be permitted to practice law usually turns upon whether that
person has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral
turpitude... Applicant's repeated violations of his absolute duty of
frankness and truthfulness132 during the admissions process
demonstrate that he has yet to attain the state of mind necessary to
achieve reformation and regeneration and is little different from the
person who behaved so poorly133 in the past. Judge McElroy stops short
of actually finding Applicant committed any acts of moral turpitude,
then, illogically, attempts to base her Decision on the idea that it seems
likely that Applicant will continue to commit acts of moral turpitude
which she did not find the Bar had proven applicant committed.
The Decision continues on to display that it is at war with itself
in its inability to find that the Bar met its burden to prove Applicant
committed a single act of moral turpitude whilst, nonetheless,
attempting to define the relevant standard as not requiring acts of
moral turpitude. This, where such reads: Furthermore, his evasive
testimony134 regarding his alcohol abuse...the court cannot conclude
that applicant is not likely to continue to commit acts of moral
turpitude. Each act of applicant's misconduct135 is not so serious as to
find him lacking good moral character. But, in examining the
combined record of his multiple acts, particularly his lack of candor
and irrational, combative behavior136 throughout these proceedings, the
court is confronted not by isolated137 or uncharacteristic acts but by a
continuing course of misconduct extending over a period of several
years.
Even if one reads the Decision to find that Applicant committed
some act of moral turpitude, the Decision fails to in any way specify
just what such act was, much less specify any findings of fact
whatsoever to support such a conclusion.
Further, the Decision is clearly at odds with the evidence (and
was issued without the necessary accompanying due process) where it
states: based on the material omissions from and misrepresentations
31
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
on the application, applicant's failure to satisfy his financial

obligations138, his evasive testimony regarding his substance abuse
issues and his erratic, hostile and belligerent behavior at trial, the
court finds that applicant has failed to demonstrate his rehabilitation.
Applicant timely submitted a Request for Review and the
required payment for a transcript. Judge Remke lacked jurisdiction to
fail to order the transcript prepared (as such was not the forum for
litigating the five year rule and ambiguity in Applicant's statements
in his filings ought be resolved in favor of conducting a review,
11
12
13
especially where a check was submitted for transcript costs), and the
Clerk was required to cause such to be prepared under Rule 5.15. Per
14
15
Rule 5.152 this Appellants Brief is timely as the Clerk has to this day
16
still yet to serve the trial transcript. The undersigned respectfully
17
18
19
declares under penalty of perjury that he is indigent with less than

$1,000 to his name, no ownership of any realty, stocks or bond, owning
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
only one vehicle worth less than $2,000, and a monthly income of under
$800, with necessary expenses of at least $500 per month and has
received food stamps at some point in the last twelve months and
respectfully asks this Court to accept the transcript he himself
dutifully prepared from the audio recordings of the trial he obtained
from this Court, especially given that one exhibit consists of the
32
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
transcript from the Informal Conference with the CBX prepared by a

Bar employee and provide the review he seeks of this mater, and permit
3
4
5
this Brief to exceed the page limitations requirement given the

expansiveness of the issues litigated and length of the Decision.
6
7
Respectfully Submitted,
8
9
10
11
12

Appellant
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I certify that on October 10th, 2016 I hand delivered a copy of this

document to both the State Bar Court and State Bar of California. Also,
I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of this APPELLANT'S
BRIEF upon the following by hand delivery and or emailing it or
mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the
following addressee:
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
GREGORY PAUL DRESSER, No. 136532
gregory.dresser@calbar.ca.gov
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, No. 104927
donald.steedman@calbar.ca.gov
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Appellant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
al
1
2
3
Index to Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Transcript of Trial in this matter four hundred and eighty
nine (489) pages
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
1 Exhibit 31.
2 Exhibit 55.
3 Exhibit 56.
5 Exhibit 72, pages 3, 4, 6, 9, 26-27, versus pages 3 and 17.
6 T441:15-442:6,, 470:8-473:20, Pages 64-65 of Exhibit 70
8 Which included a requirement that he attend for one hour each day for 180
days straight an Alcoholics Anonymous or other abstinence-based recovery
activities, among many, many other requirements. This focus on
abstinence echoes the Decisions focus on sobriety. Each skip straight
past consideration of whether abstinence is superior to a harm reduction
model, much less whether abstinence models actually raise rates of suicide,
relapse, and binge drinking, which they do, scientific studies have proven.
Www.orange-papers.com.
9 T4648-9
10The Bar put on no testimony or documentary evidence from anyone with
the CBX, but rather offered unauthenticated double hearsay from the
Director of Moral Character Determinations purporting to relay what she
heard CBX based such alleged recommendation on.
11 T2:15-18.
12T13:2-4.
13T460:6-462:2, 474:8-15, 479:12-481:21, Exhibits 39 (especially pages 15-18,
and 39-39), 40-53, 54, the entirety of the formal hearing transcripts from
Nevada in Exhibit 13 and 14, which the Bar originally provided to the
court, but which have been excised from the official record despite
Applicant offering such into evidence as well), 57, 61, 70, 71, 72 (especially
pages 29-101), T466:16-28, Exhibit 11-12, Exhibit 70, pages 61-74.
14T48, Exhibit 15, 16 (the entirety of what was filed in the pre-trial binders
by the State Bar on 4/10/07, over 130 pages, not just the 2 pages that
remain) 74, 39, 44, 61
15Page 9.
16Exhibit 19
17 The CBX Application in Exhibit 1, page 4 merely indicates one should
state the reasons for leaving if no longer employed and in no way specifies
from whose vantage point such reason should come.
18Exhibit 15, page 63. Here, again, it is improper for the Bar to provide
Judge McElroy many pages of material in exhibits in a filing of 4/10/07,
then for such to disappear from this Court's file. Coughlin offered all
materials in Exhibits that the Bar withdrew. As such, the Bar should be
required to supplement the record here with entirety of the Records of
the Office of Admissions of the State Bar of Nevada; Records of Supreme
Court of Nevada and all other instances of such materials being removed.
CBX (which is not clear, at all, as applicant disputed such contention), the
Bar offered no argument or citation to authority to support any implicit
contention that Applicant was not entitled to rely upon his counsel to so so
inform the CBX.
examination of Applicant and the Bar's Thingvold and Stephens over
whether Applicant failed to adequately or timely report when he applied for
admission to the patent bar and whether he held himself out as a patent
agent when he was really a patent attorney or vice versa which Kagan's
12/11/06 Response indicates will not be raised as an issue. The pettiness in
Kagan's last minute allegations is breathtaking and an utter
embarrassment to the State Bar of California that will only become more
glaring and public to the extent the injustice perpetrated here is not
rectified.
examination of Applicant related to his allegedly failing to display candor
as to matters he had every right to assert privileges against testifying to
(and to which Judge McElroy threatened to use a contempt power she lacks)
which Kagan's 12/11/06 Response indicates will not be raised as an issue.
And yet Judge McElroy was clearly dismayed with Applicant
throughout the trial for not following protocol?
Rule 5.101: "(E) Failure to File Pretrial Statements. If a party fails to
file a pretrial statement, the Court may order sanctions it deems proper,
including but not limited to excluding evidence or witnesses." However,
Judge McElroy literally seemingly excluded none of the State Bar's
evidence or witnesses and excluded the lion's share of Applicant, on even the
most key issues.
Neither the Bar's 12/11/06 Response or 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement
make any allegation that Applicant lacks the fitness to practice law, but
rather, cites only that the Committee contends that applicant does not
currently possess the requisite good moral character... to warrant his
admission. At Trial, significant periods of time were allowed the Bar to
explore its improvised attack that Applicant lacked the fitness to practice
to be admitted. Character is distinct from fitness. Fitness was not noticed as
an issue by the Bar.
Further, in an egregious display of dishonesty and bad faith the Bar's
Kagan's Affidavit purports to relay matters that the Bar and LAP were
bound by agreement per the 6/22/05 Authorization and Disclosure of Release
of Information (which expired on 6/22/06) not to release at such time as
Kagan's 3/20/07 Motion, particularly where she admits herself therein that
she was only assigned such case in September of 2006. Kagan further made a
misrepresentation in such Affidavit where she wrote: 6. On April 7, 2006,
applicant was terminated from LAP (implying such was for cause rather
hysteria and its illogical, ineffective, scientifically unsound true believer

views had influenced the State Bar Court.
111 What proof of this is there in the record? Judge McElroy simply
defines as deliberately evasive testimony that is different than that
which she wants to hear. She wanted Coughlin to testify that he had had
even a drop of alcohol in the preceding two years, at which point, she
would have denied his application. Coughlin was never informed by the
Bar or Court that he had some duty to obsessively chronicle whether he
had consumed even a drop of alcohol since May 2005, much less since
January 2003. Further, the record does not demonstrate that Coughlin
was even all that convinced he was an alcoholic or had any sort of
substance abuse disorder, but, rather, that he was convinced the arena of
moral character determinations was being overly influenced by twelve
step ideology.
112 Actually, Applicant displayed an enormous amount of candor in
stipulating to the admission of the entirety of Exhibit 72, which exceeded
what the Bar even sought to have admitted therefrom, titled Documents
from the Lawyer's Assistance Program. The Decision is clearly inaccurate
where it found that Applicant was unable to tell the court anything
about his sobriety, other than the fact that he attended AA meetings.
Further, the Court presupposes that the only effective way to treat a
purported substance abuse program is via the absolute abstinence twelve
step idealogy that science has proven is actually rather ineffective (not to
mention belittling and prone to superstition), similar to raising teenage
pregnancy rates via preaching abstinence. One's sobriety is a completely
nebulous concept. Many people (the Applicant included here, seemingly)
did not even feel one's sobriety was a valid inquiry. Such is tantamount
to considering what one's favorite color is. Absent some legitimate proof
that one then has (and Dr. Tucker himself could not support such a
conclusion), much less ever had, a substance abuse issue that would
impede their ability to function as an attorney (much less pass three bar
exams), there is not valid reasons for the obsessive consideration of such a
non-issue.
113 That is not really true, as both Applicant's testimony at trial and the
hearsay relayed by Dr. Tucker provided proof that Applicant had ceased
drinking or using marijuana for so long a time that he could not even
remember when last he had consumed such.
114 Per California law, reasonable doubts on issues are to be resolved in an
applicant's favor. The Bar failed to meet its clear and convincing burden
of proof here.
115 It is comical to characterize someone whom had disclosed so much and

had so many of his privacy rights and privileges overrun here as lacking
candor.
116 See T480-481 wherein the Bar's Kagan makes another
misrepresentation in asserting Applicant's AA attorney sponsor's letter of
recommendation attesting to Applicant's rehabilitation and the state of
his sobriety was not in evidence when, in fact, Kagan herself successfully
had such admitted into evidence at Exhibit 39, pages 16-18. The Decision
fails to recognize such Testolin letter of recommendation was admitted
into evidence either. Further, it was plain error to refuse to admit the
State Bar of Nevada's Statewide Coordinator for Lawyers Concerned for
Lawyers, Coe Swobe, Esq.,'s letter or recommendation in Exhibit 39 (and
why is such missing from Exhibit 72?) See Exhibit 57, pages 125-129.
The State Bar Court of California at such time was not concerned with
one's current state of sobriety, but, rather, whether they had consumed
even a drop of alcohol in the preceding two years, a reckless and harmful
(www.orange-papers.com) standard the twelve step zealot members in LAP
had forced upon the Bar. Regardless, the burden was not Applicant's to
demonstrate such. Attempting to have Applicant quasi-diagnosed as
having a substance abuse problem on the eve of trial does not cut, due
process wise. The Bar put on no evidence that Coughlin had any current
lack of sobriety despite Coughlin having been subject to random drug and
alcohol screening via the lies of the CBX and LAP and coercion attendant
to both altering the terms agreed to in the 7/13/04 Abeyance Stipulation
through at least April 2006, and really, right up until trial as Coughlin
was forced to take multiple drug and alcohol screenings and even
multiple liver function tests by Dr. Tucker in April 2007. Judge
McElroy's characterizing such as amounting to no evidence whatsoever of
Coughlin's current state of sobriety is evidence of a lack of due process
and error here.
Nor does the Decision account for the reports sent to LAP's Poley by
Applicant in Exhibit 39 at pages 15 and 29-30 (also, note Kagan stipulated
to entering Applicant's AA attorney sponsor's glowing letter of
recommendation at pages 16-18, which further rebuts the Decision's
assessment that applicant offered not credible evidence of his sobriety),
nor does accord lessened credibility to LAP, the CBX, and Kagan for
Exhibit 72 so curiously missing such items.
117 What does not seem to concern the Court is due process and the fact
that the State Bar did not pled such as an issue or in anyway identify such
in either its 12/11/06 Response or 4/10/07 Pre-Trial Statement, nor even
really make an argument related to such at the trial in this matter.

Further, the Court would not let Applicant rebut any evidence that could
be deemed to factor into such consideration.
118 The Bar failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to Applicant, such as
the entirety of the materials UNLV provided to it.
119 Actually, the Bar's Kagan ignored the court's instruction as to the fact
that the patent agent attorney distinction was a non-issue and nonstarter.
120 Again, unresolved doubts are, per California law to be resolved in
favor of the Applicant. The applicant met his initial burden of proof and
the Court here fails to find that the Bar met its to prove anything related
to substance abuse or his mental health (neither of which the Bar
actually pled as issues, rather, it pled misrepresentations or omissions
related to alleged substance abuse history only.
121 The Decision fails to specify at which deposition (as Applicant was
subjected to at least two here) much less in which answer to which
question at such.
122 The extent to which the Decision refuses to specify just what these
material omissions or misrepresentations actually were prevents one
from examining whether they were, in fact, material, or, rather, minor.
123 The Decision fails to specify incident to which alleged misconduct at
UNLV (as Applicant was subjected to at least two here) much less how
Applicant made any omission or misrepresentation in regard to his
application. Further, at other points in the Decision applicant's alleged
conduct at UNLV was deemed a non-issue, so the Decision is internally
inconsistent and vague.
124 The record in this matter clearly shows that Applicant did not receive
a DUI conviction, as such, the Decision is not supported by competent or
substantial evidence as it is clearly inaccurate. The extent to which this
inaccurate finding that some DUI conviction exists bares on so many
issues connected thereto, thoroughly undermines the accuracy of the
Decision here.
125 Again, the Decision offers nothing in the way of specificity as to just
what mental health issue there is here, much less what finding supports
such a quasi-conclusion. The Decision attempts to turn the trial into a
summary disability or disciplinary proceeding, without citing to just
what Applicant did that, say, belittled witness Officer Cho, etc.
126The Decision accords no significance or mitigation for the obvious
connection between Coughlin's being wrongfully accused of academic
dishonesty at UNLV and his being arrested (for the first time in his life)
just two weeks later outside a Las Vegas movie theater. See Exhibit 72,
page 48. Further, Exhibit 72, especially pages 48 to 73 demonstrate a great
deal of rehabilitation and character evidence in addition to establishing
much in the way of mitigation and support for the view that Applicant
never had any substance abuse disorder of any kind. See the report from
Applicant's primary care physician at Exhibit 72, page 58, which states:
The patient has exhibited no addictive behaviors and is tolerating
current regimen well and as per the information provided by Mr.
Coughlin we will provide reports as necessary. See also in Exhibit 72,
page 59, a letter attesting to Applicant's recovery by the Statewide
Coordinator for the State Bar of Nevada's Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
Program, Coe Swobe, Esq.
127 An a review of the data from actual peer review scientific studies
published in reputable academic journals as to the efficacy of Twelve Step
Facilitated (TSF) Treatment establishes that such is actually responsible
for a higher suicide rate, and greater degrees and rates of relapse and
binge drinking. Www.orange-papers.com
128 Here the Decision, in a continuing theme, fails to mention anything in
particular to support such conclusion. Just what did Applicant leave out
of his 9/28/02 CBX Application? The fact that he had not yet begun to
work at places, or incurred alleged debts, or allegedly been terminated
from some employment, or later been convicted of dry reckless driving
that he would later update the CBX about? Apparently the Decision is
referring to such Application not disclosing some alleged substance abuse
problem. However, see Applicant's own twelve step enthusiast father's
testimony at his 6/21/02 formal hearing before the State Bar of Nevada's
Admissions Committee wherein such father makes no mention of any
alleged substance abuse problem. See Applicant's father's testimony in
Exhibit 14, which the CA Bar curiously sought to withdraw from the
exhibits it filed with the court well in advance of the trial and which
Judge McElroy claimed to have already read by the time of trial.
Further, by UNLV's Associate Dean's response to a CBX inquiry in
Exhibit 18 there is further proof that Applicant did not believe himself to
have any substance abuse problem at the time of his Exhibit 2 3/19/03
update to the CBX the Decision bases its conclusion that Applicant made
misrepresentations (or lacked candor) regarding some alleged history of
alcoholism on. In Exhibit 18, Assoc. Dean Smith admitted the Dean
recently received a telephone call from Mr. Coughlin's father indicating
Mr. Coughlin has a chemical dependency. If Applicant's own twelve step
zealot of a father is not testifying to the Nevada Bar on 6/21/02 that
Applicant then had some history of substance abuse, and the father is only
calling UNLV's Dean close in time to 3/18/03 (and after the dubious
1/23/03 DUI arrest by Officer George) to allege such, then how could the
Bar have possibly shown by clear and convincing evidence that Applicant
made any misrepresentation in his Exhibit 2 3/19/03 update to the CBX or
that Applicant committed a material omission in his 9/28/02 CBX
Application in Exhibit 1 by failing to, what, proclaim himself and
alcoholic (with all his lack of training to even make such a quasidiagnosis)?
Judge McElroy fails to identify why she believes Applicant's
statements in the Ex. 2 3/19/03 letter to CBX were misrepresentations or
material omissions rather then viewing his statements in the Ex. 12
7/8/04 informal conference to be misrepresentations. Or, better yet, why
Judge McElroy does not view all such statements to be completely
understandable and related to infinitely vague and subjective subject
matter concerning intensely personal material? Judge McElroy does not
indicate why she did not find Applicant's statements at the 7/8/04
informal conference were exaggerations (or historical re-branding given
the time it can take for a cult's teaching to fully sink in) of the extent (and
genesis or chronology) of his then recovery from the spiritual disease
concept of alcoholism his father had been heaping on him since dragging
Applicant to AA meetings when he was as young as three years old (as
testified to in Exhibit 57, page 33 (with such attached to Kagan's 3/20/07
Motions to Compel), also see Exhibit 70 page 13: "And I come from an
environment where, you know I've had AA kind of force-fed to me
throughout my life from an early- a very early age...").
At the 7/8/04 informal conference Applicant merely indicated (and not
under oath): on January 1, 2002, I became a sober member of Alcoholics
Anonymous. Can the CBX's Mark J. Decastro's pretentious initial
question at the 7/8/04 Informal Conference really be said to be demanding
anything less than a I went down to the river and put my feet in the
water and had a spiritual conversion sort of answer? Was applicant just
trying to give the CBX what they demanded? Is that so bad? Did it all go
awry once the unstable, erratic zealot twelve step true believers with an
ax to grind with the LAP flew just a bit to close to the sun in attempting
to skip medical school (much less residency) and go straight to rewriting
real physician's prescriptions?
Further, the twelve step zealotry seems to have permeated the DRE
sphere in which Officer George resides:
http://www.decp.org/experts/12steps.htm "The 12-Step DRE Protocol

The DREs utilize a 12-step process to assess their suspects:"
What exactly does it mean to be a sober member of AA? Does that
mean one is serious? Does it mean they have not had even a molecule of
alcohol enter there system in any way since becoming so? See LAP's (and
Exhibit 72 reveals the extent of dishonesty from LAP and Poley or the
CBX as a good deal of the communications between Coughlin and LAP
were scrubbed therefrom, particularly the ones were Poley took to using
31 question marks in a row in a display of her awesome professionalism, or
whether she attempted to alienate Applicant from his then attorney and
engage in ex parte coercive contacts with Applicant in connection
therewith) there then outrageous policies telling accomplished grown
adults (many of whom went into the law due to a respect for personal
liberties) what sort of mouthwash they could use (or poppy seed muffins
they could eat) due to the scientifically sound fact that they would
obviously become stark raving drunkards due to the powerlessness
(which is something all cults attempt to inculcate in their subjects, along
with guilt induction, here re-branded as character defects by the twelve
step oeuvre ) they, of course, were doomed to (for life, no less, even Dr.
Tucker tells us that) over alcohol and John Barleycorn?
A sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a completely vague
phrase. See Exhibit 70, page 8 of the deposition transcript therein for the
following exchange: Q. Are you a member of Alcoholics Anonymous? A
I'm not sure what you mean by "member". Q. Do you attend Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings? A. I have gone to some. See, also, page 19 of Ex. 70:
"Q. Mr. Coughlin, you can either answer the question or not answer the
question. And if you don't answer the question, you can surely object it. At
the time of the informal conference, was the statement that you were a
sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002 true? A. I
don't think that's a statement that can be characterized as true or false. Q.
Explain that. A Well, for one, there is not a membership list in AA, okay?
You don't pay dues. You don't apply. It is not something where there is a
membership committee that rejects your application. It's not something
that is treated in that way. Q. I asked you a question of whether or not
that statement was true at the time that you made it. A. Um-hmm. Q. And
your answer is, it can't be true or false? A. In a sense, yes."
See, also, page 20 of Ex. 70: "Q. Were you a sober member of Alcoholics
Anonymous as of January 1st, 2002? A Well, I don't think there's a
membership role in Alcoholics Anonymous, so I don't know that anybody
is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. Q. This is your language, Mr.
Coughlin. You called yourself a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Do you understand that? A Um-hmm. Q. What was your understanding of
what "sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous" meant at that time? A
Someone who is not drinking, i.e., sober, and who is going to Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings, maybe reading some of the literature." Clearly,
Applicant did not define sober member of AA as someone who had any
duty to report anything to the CBX, nor did the CBX Application so
require such, nor was such statement a misrepresentation when viewed
with the statements in the 3/19/03 Applicant letter to CBX in Ex. 2. It is a
testament to the rabid cult promotion tactics of Twelve Step groups,
members of which whom clearly infiltrated the CBX (Applicant
recognizes names on the CBX letterheads from the relevant times herein
of noted twelve step zealots) and LAP and exerted massive influence over
the State Bar Court that applicants feel pressured to participate in them
even when they do not feel they have or had any substance abuse problem.
Ex. 39, Page 15, Applicant's letter to LAP: December 27th. 2004 Dear
Ms. Poley, Please accept this letter as a narrative relating to my recovery
from alcohol use. I have remained sober during the entirety of the
abeyance period.. Why does Judge McElroy accept hearsay testimony and
document from the Bar but not to support Coughlin's sobriety?
Also, in Exhibit 39, at pages 35-36, is a letter from Coe Swobe, Esq.,
whom was then the Statewide Coordinator of the State Bar of Nevada's
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers program, which stated: He has informed
me that he has been clean and sober since February 1, 2003. I have no
reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's recovery with other
members of the legal profession who are members of Lawyers Concerned
for Lawyers in Nevada and we concluded that Zach Coughlin is doing the
right things to foster and build a solid program for recovery from the
disease of a1cohol and drug abuse. I believe, from my observation of Zach's
performance and attitude over the past two years, that if he continues on
his present path of abstaining from alcohol and drugs, regularly attends
A.A. meetings and closely associates with other recovering members of the
disease of alcohol and drug abuse, he will not relapse.
Page 32 of Ex. 70: "Do you drink any alcohol at all? A No."
There was plenty of evidence that Applicant did not, at the time of
trial, have anything in the way of a substance abuse problem that would
impede his ability to practice law. The insistence by the Bar and Court in
mining the territory of exactly when Applicant's last consumption of
alcohol was served no purpose whatsoever than to attempt to gain points
on some impeachment grounds. This is an applicant whom to this day has
never been convicted of a DUI. There are thousands of attorneys, judges,

and applicants in California whom have. Yet all this bluster. For what?
Further, Kagan's presentation to the court of photographs allegedly
taken of the interior of Applicant's apartment is grounds for a mistrial.
It is plainly inaccurate for the Decision to assert there is no evidence
in the record of Applicant's current sobriety. Ex. 70, page 7: "Q. What
about after your arrest on January 7th, 2003? Did you ever have any
alcohol after that date? A Not that I remember." Applicant is not
required to hold as sacrosanct his sobriety date and carry around a
medal in commemoration of it and otherwise obsessively define himself
for the rest of his life in relation thereto. Nor is he required to define
himself as a failure should such sobriety date change. Its simply not
everybody's bag. To many it is demeaning and ineffective or pointless at
best.
Exhibit 72, Dr. Tucker's hallowed report, contains more evidence of the
fact that there was no alcohol or other substance abuse issue worthy of
addressing in this trial: go February 2003 after his DUI arrest, and he
stated that he has not had any alcohol since that time. Page 52, of
Exhibit 72 in Applicant's July 2005 report to LAP: I have been sober since
January 28th, 2003. If hearsay in Exhibit 12 from the 7/8/04 informal
conference is admitted to prove the truth of the matter, why not this?
129 And see Applicant's own beloved twelve step enthusiast father here
calling the Dean of Applicant's law school in early 2003 to proclaim that
the Applicant had a chemical dependency problem (see Exhibit 18). This
at a time when the Applicant was 26 years old and had never been found
guilty of any crime beyond a dry reckless driving conviction, and whom
had never been found to have committed any academic misconduct and
had just graduated from law school and passed three of the supposedly
more difficult bar exams.
130 T99: Q: Mr. Coughlin I am asking about statements you made at the
statement I'm a sober- I've been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous
since January 1st, 2002, correct? A: I believe so. Q: Yet, you don't include
that language in this letter did you? This language this letter that is
exhibit 2 page 2. A: You can start going and not really feel you belong
there. You can start going and not really be on board with it. You can just
be going to see what you think about it, you know, and then, after the fact,
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

131 The Decision fails to actually specify a date, or even a rough estimate,
of just when in the past applicant had alcohol abuse problems, which is
sort of significant considering one of the main basis for denying the
application, and one of the only instances where the Decision found the
Bar met its burden of proof where the Decision found the Bar presented
clear and convincing evidence that applicant misrepresented his
relationship with alcohol and treatment for alcohol abuse to the
committee by deeming a statement in Applicant's 3/19/03 letter to CBX
("I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties and have never been
more than a social drinker...) to be a misrepresentation. Why not deem a
statement Applicant made at the 7/8/04 Informal Conference to be a
misrepresentation (noting that at in such 7/8/04 statement applicant for
the first time admitted to having a history of alcohol abuse and been a
member of AA since January 1, 2002)? Why does Judge McElroy decide
one is a misrepresentation rather than the other? Further, why could
they both not be true?
Regardless, the Bar itself disagreed with Judge McElroy's finding that
being required to attend 8 AA meetings incident to the dry reckless
driving plea deal or then attending AA meetings was tantamount to being
enrolled in or having been referred to treatment program for drug or
alcohol abuse. See, Exhibit 70, page 26:10-12: "A: I going to an AA meeting
treatment for alcohol abuse? Q: No, Mr. Coughlin".
There is scant evidence in this matter that Applicant ever had any
alcohol abuse disorder, much less alcoholism. See the Bar's utter fail to
rebut that found in Exhibit 70, page 12, line 20-24 :" Q; So how would you
characterize your relationship alcohol? A: I don't drink alcohol. I haven't
drank alcohol in a long time. My mother and my sister both do not think I
am alcoholic...". See, also, Exhibit 70 pages 14-15, 54, 55.
One can have never been more than a social drinker and still have
been a member of AA. There was not evidence or argument put on by
the Bar to support a different conclusion. There was no evidence put on to
support the view that one conclusively has a history of alcohol abuse
just because they have been a member of AA. People can be members of
AA (whatever that means) for any numbers of reasons (including because
they felt coerced into joining such a dubious twelve step cult by the
members thereof whom have clawed their way into positions of power in
this sphere in order to force their troubling, misguided at best, views in
sheep's clothing upon the masses), many of which have nothing

whatsoever to do with whether they ever had alcoholism or any history
of alcohol abuse. The fact that Judge McElroy thinks these two
statements, with nothing more, prove the Bar met a clear and convincing
burden of proof standard demonstrates error.
Similar to the two letters of 2/23/03 to the California and Nevada Bars,
the Decision fails to identify which statement was the misrepresentation,
seemingly just relying on the vague idea that both could not possibly be
true. But such is a logical fallacy and, regardless, not supported by
evidence.
132 It is error for Judge McElroy to proclaim Applicants engaged in any
untruthfulness and then completely failed to identify what exactly he
had failed to be truthful about and upon what evidence and findings such
conclusion is based.
133 Here, the Decision stops short of referring to such as past acts of moral
turpitude, in a seeming admission that there was none.
134 Considering the tenor of the attempts at gotcha moments the Bar's
Kagan continually persisted in, Applicant's testimony that he could not
recall, but was not sure whether or not a single molecule of alcohol had
entered his system at any point since 2003 was entirely understandable
and not in any way deliberately evasive. If anything, it displayed
candor, as one could have simply testified that they had not consumed any
alcohol without truly being sure, given the extent to which alcohol is in so
many products that most do not realize it is in. Regardless, the ridiculous
superstition and belittling junk science twelve step beliefs underlying
Kagan's questions about whether Applicant had even kept any alcohol
in his residence at any point in the past four years should never have been
given the gravitas they were. The Decision simply ought have to actually
cite to or at least describe just what testimony it found to be so, and state
why.
135 Judge McElroy takes to defining misconduct as anything she finds
objectionable rather than some act that the Bar has met its burden of
proof to prove violated a Rule of Professional Conduct.
136 Judge McElroy references nothing in the record to support her
conclusory view because there is not anything in the record to support
such.
137Actually, as to all three alleged instances of misrepresentations here,
such are practically isolated given all allegations are drawn from a one
month period in 2003 following Coughlin getting arrested for a DUI and
fired from the Sacramento law firm he had just moved from Las Vegas to
begin working for, at which point he moved back to Reno. The letters of
2/23/03 to either state bar and the update of 3/19/03 to CBX from the
entirety of what the Decision's conclusion that any misrepresentations
occurred is based on. Three letters in a one month period of great tumult
is hardly a pattern drawn out over years. A disturbing lack of empathy or
understanding was shown her by either the CBX or Judge McElroy.
Further, all the statements in these letters concern quite vague,
subjective, and abstract concepts. Additionally, why no finding that
Coughlin's statements regarding the DUI arrest at the informal
conference transcribed in Exhibit 12 were misrepresentations as well?
More internal inconsistency in the Decision.
138 The record reveals some of the alleged obligations are not even
judgments, such as the summary eviction orders that Kagan misled the
court to believe were money judgments. Further, the disputed debts in
Applicant's credit report are in most instances only a few months old.
Additionally, it is error for this Court to purport Applicant's providing a
copy of his credit report to the Bar in the 2/15/07 update was somehow
proof of a lack of candor. Applicant did not affirm such debts, rather, he
went above and beyond in providing the Bar a copy of his credit report an
the opportunity to investigate such alleged debts itself. It is error to ask
this Court to litigate mere alleged debts that are not even very old, all in
a setting where the misconduct of the CBX and LAP clearly obliterated
Applicant's ability to earn money during the five year period at issue.
There is insufficient evidence in the record to prove such obligations
exists in the first place, much less that they had not been sufficiently
satisfied.
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
HEARING DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO

FOR ADMISSION
ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
)
)
)
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
1/489 Complete Transcript of Trial 06-M-13755
5/8/07 Transcript:
Judge McElroy: This is the matter of Zachary Coughlin case
number 06-M-13755. Today's date is May 8th, 2007. today's the first day
of the moral character hearing. Parties, state your appearances for the
record.
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
12
manner. There's gonna be opening statements from both parties.
13
Applicant is then going to present his case the applicant is initially
14
going to furnish enough evidence of good moral character to establish a
15
case. In this case, the applicant is going to have to furnish enough
16
evidence that he has good moral character which would include
17
evidence that he has addressed any alcohol abuse issues, okay? Once
18
the applicant has made his showing of good moral character the State
19
Bar is going to have to present evidence to rebut that good moral
20
character and then the applicant is going to have to rebut the showing
21
of bad moral character with proof of rehabilitation or an explanation
22
for why his behavior may not indicate bad moral character. In terms of
23
scheduling witnesses, how many witnesses are you gonna have, and how
24
are we going to schedule them?
25
Ms. Kagan: Most of my witnesses are scheduled for tomorrow okay
26
and I believe there are at this point seven witnesses scheduled for
27
tomorrow.
28
Judge McElroy: Tomorrow we're only going until four o'clock so.
1
2
3
4
5
6
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.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, should I stand up?
11
Judge McElroy: Sure but whatever it is you're comfortable with.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
that nature. I don't have any excuse for that other than to say that this
process has kind of gone about as far as I can go with this process, and so
I'm just here to answer any questions you might have. I think you've got
access to a thorough description of the issues that the State Bar was
concerned with and my attempts to address those issues and simply put
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
steps I've taken to address the concerns the State Bar has.
24
Judge McElroy: Do you have an opening statement.
25
Ms. Kagan: It'll be just very brief, Your Honor. As set forth in the
26
pretrial statement this case is about candor and cooperation. There are
27
Mr. Coughlin the evidence will show that he has an inability to be
28
candid with State Bar in relation to its investigation and this
proceeding. He, first of all, omitted things from his application and he
failed to update his application. When he did provide updates to his
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
10
your evidence of good moral character and because you're representing
11
yourself you'll have to get up on the stand and present your evidence of
12
good moral character in a narrative form. Okay, so you're gonna have
13
to be sworn.
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: Can I bring my notes with me to the stand?
16
Judge McElroy: Sure.
17
(The oath was administered to Mr. Coughlin.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By Mr. Coughlin:
Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon, Your Honor, to present in a
narrative form why I think I should be given a license I would start off
by pointing to the issues that the State Bar has highlighted. To start,
the omissions that the State Bar is pointing to are of the type that past
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
the fact that I reported things of a far more serious nature such as a dry
reckless driving charge.
I reported the incidents at law school to the State Bar. I reported
1
2
my arrest in October 2001 to the State Bar and from the State Bar's Pre-
Trial Statement some of the omissions in which they're taking issue
with are things things like, and I'm quoting here: Mr. Coughlin said he
was a patent attorney he's an attorney who is also listed as a patent
agent it's unclear whether he's a patent 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,
10
extremely candid. I don't know how many people you have come into
11
the State Bar informal conferences and bring up drinking as an issue,
12
you know, who you don't have a DUI, and who never been convicted of
13
any crime other than a dry reckless driving charge January 2003 and
14
perhaps some minor speeding tickets along the way.
15
Further, the State Bar has been presented with, in my estimate,
16
somewhere in the range of over six hundred signatures from recovery
17
based meetings. So, if the issue is recovery, you've got someone who
18
came in self-reported and they went out in going to a great deal of
19
meetings and present documentation as well as letters of support from
20
the State Bar Nevada's Director of that bar's Lawyer's Concerned for
21
Lawyers program, and attorney mentor, and several other attorney
22
letters of recommendation testifying to my character specifically.
23
24
25
Judge McElroy: Before we proceed, do you have a list of exhibits,

did we get a list of exhibits from you?
26
Mr. Coughlin: Other than what the State Bar submitted, no.
27
Judge McElroy: All these attorney mentor letters, where are
28
they?
Mr. Coughlin: They're included within the State Bar's.
Judge McElroy: Okay.
3
4
5
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?
Mr. Coughlin: Other than what I would be able to use out of the
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
State Bar's.
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
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
attend one meeting a days for 180 days in a row, or one recovery
activity.
But that's an hour a signature and so I think that to me illustrate
23
a great deal of time and effort that's been put into this which I don't
24
know if I think can really be summed up in words, but hopefully this
25
number of signatures and the number of pages that have been
26
submitted can make some impression. Additionally, there's a letter
27
from Coe Swobe. Exhibit 40 contains letters of reference from a number
28
of attorneys. I apologize, that's actually Exhibit 39.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I'm going to object to any
reference to letters of recommendation in this matter on the basis that
the State Bar never agreed to have character witnesses by declaration
or by letter.
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: So the objection is hearsay?

Ms. Kagan: Ha. Exactly!
Judge McElroy: Sustained.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, if it is a trial exhibit, does that mean
10
11
it's part of the trial and is to be considered by the court or?

Judge McElroy: It depends on if they're admitted into evidence. I
12
don't know what's going to be admitted into evidence. What I would
13
suggest is that you tell the court in your own words why you think
14
you're a person of good moral character. What volunteer work you've
15
done. I mean just give us why you think you're a person of good moral
16
character and why you should be admitted and you can refer to some of
17
the exhibits. Some of them may come in, some of them may not, but that
18
should have been worked out with you in terms of a declaration with
19
the State Bar in terms of whether they would accept declarations from
20
people that you were a person of good moral character and in general
21
they accept declarations but you have to work that out ahead of time
22
because otherwise it's all hearsay.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I would refer to those letters and I know you

sustained the objection so I don't know to what extent I can still refer to
them but they are included in the State Bar's exhibits. There's a letter
from a Reno District Court Judge John Kadlic in there. There's letters
from attorneys that I've worked for, the Johnson Hanan firm, the
Morishita firm.
1
2
3
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
is these people there should have been declarations are they should
come in here and testify. I mean, I can tell you generally in moral
character trials, what you do is you have eight or nine witnesses come
in and say that you're a good moral character and that you should be
admitted and they give examples of what things that you've done that
would indicate that you're good moral character. And you can do it I
10
mean, if you don't have other witnesses, of course you can do it yourself,
11
as you can start testifying as to why you believe you are a good moral
12
character.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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
cooperation then I think that sets a dangerous precedent for those in
the future who might be thinking about self-reporting or taking a look
at their drinking. It creates a climate of distrust and fear and secrecy
with the State Bar if you got a guy who came in never was arrested for
anything other than it dry reckless driving charge who said to the
State Bar, you know I think I have a problem with drinking and I'm
taking a look at it, who then went out on his own at his own direction
collected upwards of six hundred AA signatures from one hour a
meetings, submitted a bunch of letters from different AA attorneys in
Nevada and attorneys in Nevada who have been active in AA and on
the Nevada State Bar's substance abuse chapter for years and years,
and letters from district court judges.
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ms. Kagan: Objection, hearsay.

Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule the objection because he hasn't
really got into details about what they've said. Do you do any type of
volunteer work? I mean, what do you do?
Mr. Coughlin: Well, in AA I do volunteer. I make coffee, I have
11
held commitments in AA where I get up before the meeting and make
12
the coffee before the meeting. I have people in my life who have started
13
going to AA because I've taken them to AA meetings and they've
14
started getting sober because some way I think helped that to some
15
extent by taking them to a meeting. In some way I think just being
16
here is a bit of a service that I'm doing because this isn't a comfortable
17
situation for me and probably there's not a whole lot for me to gain out
18
of this, but I believe, I have strong feelings about the way this situation
19
has gone and the way my particular case has been handled and I think
20
it deserves to have a look taken at it to see if perhaps there are some
21
issues here that we need to be concerned with in terms of the policy
22
that's set forth if this court and the bar is to look at those who self-
23
report and go on to treat them in the way that my case has been treated
24
and what the ramifications of that will be.
25
In addition, I think there's some issues to look at in terms of the
26
LAP program and how it deals with the individuals who present with
27
either some sort of a ADA issue or some sort of condition or health
28
problem that maybe takes them out of the realm of their typical
participant, one who maybe is just a garden-variety alcoholic. But, how
does the LAP program treat those who present with ADD or who
present with back pain or who present with diabetes or something that
complicates the matter and is the LAP program being respectful of that
person's doctor-patient relationship? Is it trying to commandeer that
relationship? Does the LAP program and the State Bar discriminate
against individuals who maybe I've had to take certain medications
that the LAP program would rather them not be taking.
Judge McElroy: I mean I think what you should do is address the
10
issues of the honesty, fairness, trustworthiness. Those are issues that
11
this court is concerned with. Present through your testimony evidence
12
that you're trustworthy that there's honesty, candor those issues, okay?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
was just a student, you know? I think something that's really
illustrative of my candor and trustworthiness is the self reporting to
the State Bar that I mentioned earlier in addition to the prompt
reporting of my dry reckless arrest and of the movie theater arrest and
of the law school paper matter. This isn't a case of someone who got
arrested and didn't report to the State Bar. These are situations where
I promptly reported to the bar and just this determination to face
adversity of you know graduating from law school and passing bar
exams and not being licensed, and going from the time I passed you
know the Nevada Bar to get actually getting license was well over
three and a half years.
So just hanging in there trying to stay active in the legal
community, which was not very easy I think most people who are
trying to work it in the law who don't have a license but passed the bar
would say that it can be difficult to find a good position in a firm given
the economics of law practices and the state of the economy in those
years that I'm speaking of which was roughly 2001-2004. So I think that
illustrates a lot of character in that I stayed persistent, I stuck with it.
10
I had to do something to get the Nevada bar to license me because from
11
my experience they don't take that lightly at all and you know it took a
12
lot to convince the powers-that-be in Nevada that I should get a license.
13
I think that's something that perhaps this bar could consider and give
14
some weight to especially considering that I was in Nevada for the
15
better part of my life. I only lived in California first something around
16
two months and so it's those in Nevada who have had the opportunity to
17
observe me and make judgments about my fitness to practice law.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
I'm not hearing it now. What you, I mean I can presume your a Nevada
lawyer because I have all the papers, but it's not in the record. You've
got to do that, okay?
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, well can I state under oath that I am a
Nevada lawyer?
28
Judge McElroy: Of course, that's what you're here for. I mean
what you have to do is prove that you have good moral character and
you have to give us proof so you have to set it up so that it's in evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, well I am a Nevada lawyer. I also have
passed the patent bar exam, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office's bar
exam, and have been licensed with that office.
7
8
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: Was there are moral character component in

getting the license for Nevada? Was there moral character component
in getting a license to be a patent attorney? These are the things we
need to hear.
12
Mr. Coughlin: Yes there was-
13
Judge McElroy: Okay, so go ahead.
14
Mr. Coughlin: In both cases, there was a thorough process, in both
15
the Patent Bar's licensing application ,moral character application and
16
in the Nevada Bar's. I was given the license as a patent agent prior to
17
become an attorney in 2003, May of 2003, and I was subsequently given
18
a Nevada practice law March of 2005. From March of 2003, I've been
19
active in Nevada Bar's Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers program which
20
is a program affiliated with the State Bar of Nevada that is somewhat
21
analogous to the LAP or The Other Bar programs that are in
22
California. That's including meeting once a week with a group of
23
attorneys for an hour long meeting. I've had some experience in the law.
24
I worked in a litigation firm and I worked in a medical malpractice
25
firm and I don't know what else I might be able to say to prove that I
26
have character.
27
28
Judge McElroy: So do we have cross-examination?
Ms. Kagan: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: So, at this point I'm gonna make a ruling that
you've made a prima facie case that you have good moral character and
so now the issue is going to be the State Bar rebutting that good
character. So, I'm gonna make a ruling that you've shown that you have
you've made enough of the case that you have good moral character. So
now the State Bar can present their evidence to rebut that, so you can
step down and you can cross-examine their witnesses.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ms. Kagan: I'm going to call Mr. Coughlin as my first witness.

What I'd like to do first, Mr. Coughlin, is go through all the
applications and updates that we've submitted to the State Bar.
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.
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: I'd like to turn to Exhibit 1, Mr. Coughlin.
19
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry would it be possible to use the restroom?
20
Judge McElroy: Sure, so why don't we take a five-minute break so
21
22
23
24
25
you can.
Court: Back on the record.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, please turn to Exhibit 1. Do you recognize
Exhibit 1?
26
A: Yes, I do.
27
Q: How do you recognize it?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A: My original application, moral character applications to the

State Bar of California.
Q: This is something that you filed with the State Bar?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you look at pages 1 through 25 and advise whether or not
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?
Judge McElroy: Any objection?
A: No, Your Honor.
13
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 1 is moved into evidence.
14
Q: Move on to Exhibit 2. Mr. Coughlin, do you recognize Exhibit 2?
15
Just to put on record Exhibit 2 is a three-page exhibit, first page is
16
entitled Amendment to Application, second page is a letter on the
17
letterhead of Zachary Barker Coughlin dated March 19, 2003 and page 3
18
is a letter entitled Application of Zachary B. Coughlin dated February
19
23rd, 2003.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: The question is do I recognize Exhibit 2, and that would be

these three pages?
Q: Yes.
A: I recognize the first page the second page I don't see a signature
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.
3
4
5
Q: Other than the signature, do you know whether or not you

wrote this page?
A: I'm not sure my guess, would be that I did though.
Q: Move to have Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: No, Your Honor.
11
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 2 is admitted into evidence.
12
Q: Exhibit three Mr. Coughlin. Exhibit 3 is a 38-page exhibit on
13
that is on the letterhead of Zachary Coughlin dated February 15 th, 2007,
14
do you recognize Exhibit 3?
15
16
17
A: Yes.
18
A: As the update that I mailed to my moral character application.
19
Ms. Kagan: Request to have Exhibit 3 moved into evidence?
20
21
22
Judge McElroy: Objection?

Mr. Coughlin: No.
23
24
Q: Exhibit 4 is a 22-page exhibit and the first page is entitled
25
State Bar of Nevada Application for Admission 2001 data input sheet,
26
do you recognize Exhibit 4.
27
28
A: Yes, I did.
A: It is the application for admission to the State Bar of Nevada.
3
4
5
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.
9
10
11
12
Q: Okay, let's turn to Exhibit 17, please. 17 is a five-page exhibit,
13
the first page is dated January 9th, 2003, attention Kathy Crary and the
14
middle of the page says sincerely Zach Coughlin. Do you recognize
15
exhibit 17?
16
17
18
A: Yes, I do.
19
A: A letter from Ms. Crary to myself.
20
21
22
23

Mr. Coughlin: No.
24
25
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 19, a two-page exhibit and the first page is
26
entitled application of Zachary B. Coughlin dated February 23, 2003.
27
Do you recognize Exhibit 19?
28
A: Yes, it do, it's a letter from myself to Ms. Crary.
Ms. Kagan: Move to have Exhibit 19 moved into evidence.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 19 admitted into evidence.
Q: I would like you to turn to Exhibit 20, a letter from Ms. Crary
7
8
9
10
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?
11
A: Yes, I did.
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: No.
16
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 20 is admitted.
17
Q: Turn to Exhibit 21, a 15-page exhibit the first page is entitled
18
amendment to application and dated March 19, 2003. Do recognize
19
Exhibit 2?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A:Yes.
A: Its an amendment to the application that I submitted. I don't
see a signature on the second page, but I do recognize the police report.
Q: Was that the end of your answer?
A: Yes.
Q: I request to have Exhibit 21 moved into evidence.
Judge McElroy: Any objection.
A: No, Your Honor.
3
4
5

Q: Let's move on to Exhibit 25, a two-page exhibit the first page is
to Ms. Kathy Crary dated September 15 2003 from Zach Coughlin, the
second page is another letter dated September 15 2003 to Ms. Kathy
Crary from Zachary Coughlin. Do you this exhibit?
9
10
11
12
13
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.
14
15
16
A: No, Your Honor.
17
18
19

Q: Exhibit 32 is a four page exhibit, the first page is on the
20
letterhead of Zach Coughlin, J.D., it's dated May 31st, 2004. Do you
21
recognize Exhibit 32?
22
23
24
25
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And how do you recognize?
A: I believe it's a letter I sent Ms. Crary.
26
27
28
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Now turn to Exhibit 39, please turn to page 29, a letter on the
letterhead of Zach Coughlin, J.D., to Pam Poley, the second page of that
exhibit is the second page of the letter signed Zach Coughlin. Do you
recognize page 29 and 30 of exhibit 39?
6
7
8
9
A: Yes it's a letter to Ms. Poley from myself.

Q: I request to have pages 29 and 30 from Exhibit 39 moved into
evidence.
10
11
A: No, Your Honor.
12
13
Judge McElroy: Pages 29 and 30 from Exhibit 39 is admitted.
14
Court Personnel: Just 29 and 30, Your Honor?
15
Judge McElroy: Yes, so far.
16
Q: Please turn next to Exhibit 72, Mr. Coughlin. Please turn to
17
pages 33 through 57 of that exhibit, Page 33 entitled Mental Health is a
18
document that goes through page 57 and it's signed or it says thank you,
19
Zach Coughlin, Esq. On the last page. Do you recognize these pages of
20
this exhibit?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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.
Judge McElroy: Is there any objection?
28
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 72, pages 33 to 57 are admitted.
3
4
5
6
Q: Mr. Coughlin on July 8th, 2004, did you take part in an informal
conference with the Committee of Bar Examiners, and are you aware
that that conference was audio taped?
A: Yes, I was, and Yes, I am.
Q: Were you provided a copy of the transcript from that
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
conference from the audiotape.

A: Yes, I was.
Q: I would like you to turn to Exhibit 12, a 10-page exhibit and it's
entitled informal conference of July 8, 2004, Zachary Coughlin. Does
this exhibit accurately represent what was on the audiotape?
A: I believe so.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ms. Kagan: And I also have the audiotape of the informal
22
23
24
25
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.
26
27
28
Q: Turn to Exhibit 5, a 25-page exhibit and the first page it's an
email from Zachariah Coughlin to Mtratos@QuirkandTratos.com. Do
you recognize Exhibit 5.
4
5
6
A: Yes, I do.
Q: How do you recognize?
A: As an email from myself to Professor Tratos followed by what
appears to be a hand written response from Professor Tratos to myself.
Q: I would like you to look at the entire exhibit pages 1 through 25
10
and advise whether or not these are emails between yourself and
11
Professor Tratos.
12
A: The initial email seems to be missing. The one where he asked
13
for another copy of my paper. I remember we had a long discussion
14
about that one email and is asking for another copy of the paper.
15
16
Q: Is that represented by page 8 of the exhibit.
17
A: Yes.
18
Q: So going back to my earlier question, do these emails represent
19
20
21
22
23
24
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.
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.
28
1
2
3
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: I object to the extent this stems from the

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.
Q: Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin, a one-page exhibit it's dated April 7 th,
2006 to Zachary B. Coughlin from Janis R. Thibault. Do you recognize
Exhibit 6?
10
11
12
A: Yes, I do.
13
A: Its a letter from Ms. Thibault.
14
Q: To you?
15
A: Yes.
16
17
Q: You received this letter?
18
A: I'm not sure of that.
19
Q: Request to have Exhibit 6 moved into evidence.
20
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
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
3
4
5
into evidence?
A: No.
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 7, page 12 is moved into evidence. Let's
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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?
15
Ms. Kagan: We tried to work on that, however, I mean if he's
16
willing to stipulate now to all the exhibits I have 74 exhibits we'd like
17
to take some time to review and if he has any objection I would be
18
happy to do it that way.
19
Judge McElroy: That might be easier, are you willing to do that,
20
just go over the exhibits and just give me a list of the ones you have
21
objections to or I don't want to put any pressure on you if you don't feel
22
like at this point you can why why don't we just proceed and because I
23
realize it's a lot for you to have to look at so why don't we just proceed.
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Exhibit 8 is a five-page exhibit it's on the letterhead of Lynn

Thingvold and it's from Rob Walton to Lynn Thingvold subject Zach
Coughlin. Do you recognize Exhibit 8.
A: No.
Q: Do you recognize the emails from Rob Walton at Uni-
1
2
shippers.com to and from then Zanvibar2@hotmail.com?
3
4
A: So the first email we're not talking about, the one to Ms.
Thingvold?
Q: No, I'm talking about the other ones.
6
7
A: They look familiar.
Q: And how do they look familiar.
A: They deal with a gentleman, Rob, who I know and involves
10
subject matter I am familiar with.
11
Ms. Kagan: I request to have Exhibit 8 moved into evidence.
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: No.
15
16
17
18
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 9, Mr. Coughlin, a one-page letter dated

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

Q: Did you receive Exhibit.
17
A: Yes.
18
19
20
21

Mr. Coughlin: No.
22
23
Q: Exhibit 29 is a two-page exhibit the first page is a letter dated
24
May 10th, 2004 to Kathy Crary from Jerome Fishkin, second page is a
25
report of Robert Hunter PhD. D dated May 21, 2002. Do you recognize
26
Exhibit 29?
27
28
A: Yes, I do, it is as you described it.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Q: Please turn to exhibit 31, a one-page letter dated May 27 2004 to
Jerome Fishkin from Deborah Murphy Lawson. Do you recognize
Exhibit 31.
9
10
11
A: Yes, I do.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
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.
20
A: Yes, I do.
21
22
23
24
A: It is as you described.
Ms. Kagan: I Request that Exhibit 37 be moved into evidence.
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: No.
27
28
Q: Exhibit 38, a two-page exhibit the first page is dated July 22 nd,
2004 to Deborah Murphy Lawson from Jerome Fishkin, the second page
of the exhibit is a stipulation pursuant to Rule 10 section 4 signed by
Zachary Coughlin on 7/19/04. Do you recognize Exhibit 38.
5
6
7
A: Yes, I do.
A: It is as you described.
10
11
12

Mr. Coughlin: No.
13
14
Q: I'd like to go back to Exhibit 39, I'd like you to review pages 1 to
15
28 of Exhibit 39, Page 1is the letter dated January 12, 2005 to Deborah
16
Murphy Lawson from Jerome Fishkin with enclosures. Do you
17
recognize Exhibit 39 pages 1 to 28?
18
19
20
21
A: Yes, I do.
Ms. Kagan: I request to have Exhibit 39, pages 1 to 28 moved into
evidence.
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: No.
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 39 pages 1 to 28 is moved into evidence.

Okay, so is that all of Exhibit 39?
Ms. Kagan: No, its not, its just pages 1 to 30.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, can I request to have the rest of the
exhibit admitted into evidence?
Judge McElroy: Any objection
Ms. Kagan: I object on the basis of hearsay.
Judge McElroy: Let's see, Exhibit 39, what I'm going to do right
now is not make a ruling at all and at the end determine whether it
should come in or not so right now we have Exhibit 39 pages 1 to 30
coming in. I'm not gonna do on your request as of yet.
10
Q: Exhibit 40 is a four-page exhibit the first page is a letter to
11
Deborah Lawson dated January 27th, 2005 from Fishkin and the exhibit
12
contains two reports of Oliver Ocskay, PhD. D, dated December 11 th,
13
2004 and August 16th 2004. Do you recognize this exhibit?
14
15
16
A: Yes I do, it is as you describe it.

17
18
Mr. Coughlin: No.
19
20
21
22
23
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?
24
A: Yes I do.
25
26
27
28

Mr. Coughlin: No.
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
Jerome Fishkin and pages three through five of the exhibit is the order
admitting applicant to the State Bar Nevada. Do you recognize this
exhibit.
7
8
9
A: Yes.
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: No.
12
13
14

Q: Exhibit 47, a four-page exhibit and the first page is a letter
15
dated May 12th, 2005 to Debra Murphy Lawson from Jerome Fishkin,
16
and page 3 is the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, Certificate of
17
Zachary B. Coughlin, Page 4 is a letter dated April 6 th, 2005 regarding
18
the admission of Zachary B. Coughlin to the State Bar of Nevada. Do
19
you recognize this exhibit?
20
A: Yes.
21
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: No.
25
26
27
28
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.
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Q: Exhibit 50 is a one-page exhibit entitled Lawyer's Assistance
10
11
Program Notification of Enrollment. Do you recognize Exhibit 50?
12
A: No.
13
Q: Okay, let's move on. Exhibit 53, is a one-page exhibit dated
14
November 27th, 2001 to Mr. Zachary Coughlin from Philip Burns,
15
Student Judicial Affairs Officer for UNLV. Do you recognize Exhibit
16
53?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A: Yes. It is as you described it.

Mr. Coughlin: No.
Q: Exhibit 54, Mr. Coughlin, a four-page exhibit the first page of
25
the exhibit is dated May 26th, 2006 to Deborah Murphy Lawson from
26
Jerome Fishkin. Page 2 is a report of Alan Wong, M.D., page 3 is report
27
of Mujahid Rasul, M.D. And page four is a report of Oliver Ocskay, PhD.
28
D. Do you recognize Exhibit 54?
A: Yes, it is as you describe it.
3
4
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?
9
10
A: Yes I do.
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: No.
14
15
16

Q: Exhibit 59 is a six-page exhibit first page is a letter dated
17
September 27th, 2001 to Zachary Coughlin from Christine Smith,
18
Associate Dean of Administration and Student Affairs at UNLV. Do
19
20
21
22
23
A: Yes.
A: The entire exhibit?
24
Q: Yes.
25
A: Its a letter to me from Christine Smith followed by an email
26
27
28
from her, followed by an email from me to her.

Mr. Coughlin: No.
3
4
5

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.
10
11
Judge McElroy: So is the objection hearsay or what?
12
Mr. Coughlin: I object because it is hearsay.
13
Judge McElroy: Sustained. At this point will not let it in until
14
15
there's a foundation.
Q: Exhibit 13 is the reporters transcript of proceedings from
16
March 1st, 2002 in the case In Re matter of Zachary B. Coughlin
17
Committee of Moral Character and Fitness, State Bar of Nevada. Do
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: Yes.
Q: Was this transcript of the hearing that you participated in
with the State Bar Nevada.
A: Yeah.
Mr. Coughlin: Hearsay.
28
Judge McElroy: Okay I'm going to sustain it on that I think what
you have to do is bring in specific parts that you want in because not all
of it can come in but most of it can probably come in under other.
Q: Exhibit 15 is 118 page exhibit these were documents that were
provided by the State Bar Nevada in relation to Mr. Coughlin's matter
before that Committee. I would request to have pages 1 through 106 and
113 through 117 admitted into evidence
8
9
10
11
Ms. Kagan: I will limit that to just page 29, just the affidavit.
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: No.
15
Judge McElroy: Page 29 is admitted as to Exhibit 15.
16
Q: Exhibit 60 is a 27-page exhibit and the first page is entitled in
17
small claims court of Reno Township, County of Washoe, State of
18
Nevada. Do you recognize Exhibit 60.
19
20
21
22
23
A: No.
Ms. Kagan: I request that the court takes judicial notice of
Exhibit 60 it's a certified court record of Washoe County case number
RSC 2005-000301.
24
Judge McElroy: Is their an objection?
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: I'm going to take judicial notice of the fact that
there is a small claims court of Reno Township. So it's judicially noticed
and that would be Exhibit 60 judicially noticed.
Q: Turn to Exhibit 61, Mr. Coughlin. Do you recognize Exhibit 61
it is three five page exhibit, first pages entitled application for
registration to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. You do recognize this exhibit?
5
6
7
A: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
10
11
12
13

Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I'm sorry to ask again, but can I use
the restroom.
14
Judge McElroy: We'll take a five minute.
15
Q: Request to have Exhibit 67 moved into evidence?
16
Judge McElroy: This is a certified copy. The court will take
17
18
19
20
judicial notice of Exhibit 67.

Q: Exhibit 68 is a two-page exhibit certified copy of the toxicology
report in relation to Zachary Coughlin. Do you recognize this exhibit?
21
A: Yes I do.
22
23
24
25

26
Judge McElroy: The court will take judicial notice of the fact that
27
there is a toxicology report. That is the only thing I am taking judicial
28
notice of, I mean, all the other stuff in the report may be hearsay.
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 72 is a 101 page exhibit.
Judge McElroy: We already have page 33 through 57 admitted
3
4
5
6
okay.
Q: Actually, strike that. Mr. Coughlin did you attend evaluation
with Douglas Tucker on our April 27th, 2007.
A: Yes I did.
Q: And was that based on this Court ordering you to attend that
9
10
11
12
evaluation.
A: Yes.
Q: As part of that evaluation did Dr. Tucker examine you?
13
A: I'm sorry, are we done admitting?
14
Q: I specifically want to turn to Exhibit 71.
15
A: Yes, Dr. Tucker did examine me.
16
17
18
Q: As part of that examination did you take part in a three hour

and ten minute interview with Dr. Tucker.
19
A: I believe it was roughly that length.
20
Q: As part of that examination did Dr. Tucker advise you that he
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would be issuing a report.

A: Yes he did.
Q: Can you review Exhibit 71 and advise whether or not this is the
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
3
4
5
6
7
report?
A: Yes.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, you passed the July 2001 Nevada bar
examination?
A: Correct.
Q: You passed the July 2002 California Bar Examination?
10
11
12
13
A: Yes.
Q: On February 2nd, 2001, you filed an application for admission to
the State Bar Nevada?
14
A: Yes.
15
Q: And that's represented by Exhibit 4.
16
17
A: Yes.
18
Q: And then on December 18th, 2002, the Nevada Supreme Court
19
issued an order deferring your admission to the State Bar of Nevada.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: Yes.
Q: On March 25th 2005, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order
of admission conditioned on your compliance with certain 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
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?
6
7
A: I can't recall.
Q: Would this be something that you wouldn't read before signing.
A: I don't understand your question.
10
11
12
Q: You did sign this document correct?

A: I believe so.
13
Q: On September 23rd, 2002.
14
A: That's what it looks like.
15
Q: And on page 17 in the bolded language in the first paragraph it
16
states I've carefully read the questions and the foregoing application
17
and answered them truthfully fully and completely without mental
18
reservation of any kind and fully understand that failure to make full
19
disclosure of any information called for may result in the denial of my
20
application receipt of an adverse moral character determination. I
21
therefore agree to give the Committee through the State Bar's office of
22
admissions any further information which may be required in
23
reference to such investigation.
24
25
A: I'm sorry you're saying that's all on bold?
26
Q: No I'm sorry the first part was in bold, the rest starting with I
27
therefore agree is not in bold. That's what the documents says, correct?
28
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
addition to or changed information previously furnished but two
previously furnished the Committee correct that is what it says and the
last paragraph states I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the State of California that the answers and statements
10
11
12
13
provided by me in the foregoing application are true and correct?

A: That's what it says.
Q: Why are there two signatures at the bottom, Mr. Coughlin.
14
A: I don't know.
15
Q: Are both of those your signatures?
16
A: I believe so but I'm not sure.
17
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
23
24
signature.
Judge McElroy: You can be reasonably sure.
25
A: Yeah.
26
Q: So you're reasonably sure that is your signature right?
27
28
A: Yeah. I am not sure why there is two signatures, that has me a

little confused but they both do look like my handwriting.
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.
6
7
8
9
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
10
11
related that question.?
12
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
13
Mr. Coughlin: And your question is why would working in a
14
library be under a law related?
15
16
17
Ms. Kagan: My question was, I want you to point out where your
law library related employment was listed. It's not listed is it?
18
A: I don't believe it's called for.
19
Q: Okay do you see under employment history where it says this is
20
approximately four sentences in also list to the best of your recollection
21
all of your employment business occupations and professions which are
22
not related but lasted longer than six months since your 18 th birthday.
23
A: Yes.
24
Q: You worked at the law library from October 1999 to May 2000.
25
26
A: I'm not sure.
27
Q: Is there something that would refresh your recollection about
28
that?
A: Paycheck stubs.
Q: What about your application to the Nevada bar in Exhibit 4
where you stated on page 16 of that exhibit at the top month and year
beginning ending employment from 10/99 to 5/2000, University of
Nevada Las Vegas law library. Would that refresh your recollection?
6
7
8
9
10
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.
11
A: I don't recall.
12
Q: What do you think the dates of employment are?
13
14
15
16
17
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?
18
A: Not if there was an extended break in between.
19
Q: In fact in your update to your application which is Exhibit 3.
20
A: I'm just seeing, let's say hypothetically it started on the thirty-
21
first of October and you ended on the 1st of May, and even without a
22
break, I don't know whether or not it would be six months.
23
24
Q: But, are those dates of 10/.99 through May 2002 accurate?
25
A: I don't know.
26
Q: In fact, in your application update in February 15 2007 at page
27
2 you wrote that I was not employed at the law library for an extended
28
period during the winter break from classes in December 1999 through
January 2000?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A: Yes, I believe that is true.

Q: So, are you saying that those are the dates of your employment?
A: No I'm saying when you work there and they close for the
winter break and I wasn't working there while they were closed.
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 aA: 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.
16
A: Well it says if it lasted more than six months.
17
Q: So how do you interpret that?
18
A: Well, you would add up the period which you are employed,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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.
Q: Didn't you actually testify to theA: And, also, it wasn't full time employment it was part time, like
10 to 12 hours a week.
28
Q: And I want you to list under employment history on the
application where it says that there's a difference between full-time
and part-time.
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: And this is in which application?

Ms. Kagan: Page 4 of exhibit 1.
Mr. Coughlin: And that is the California application?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry what's your question, again?
10
11
12
13
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?
14
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know what you're asking that.
15
Judge McElroy: She is just simply asking it and if you can answer,
16
17
18
19
20
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.
21
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure that it does say that?
22
Q: Didn't you testify to the Nevada Committee that your
23
employment at the law school pretty much lasted the first year of law
24
school.
25
26
27
28
A: I don't recall that.

Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 13, page 37, starting at line 9, Ms. Story:
how long did you work for the law library? The witness: I'm not certain
the exact number of months but it was pretty much the first year of law
school, I was working I was studying there until midnight each night
the lady who worked there said why don't you just work here and I said
well yeah that would be great you get paid so for that so I worked there
for the whole first year basically it might not be the entire first year
because the first probably month or maybe longer than that two, three
months I can't remember, I wasn't working there. You testified to that?
8
9
10
11
12
A: I believe so.
Q: So you actually worked there for longer than just a few months,
didn't you?
A: Well, I don't know. If the school year is like eight months and I
13
say I hadn't worked there the first three months, then you. What was
14
your question, again?
15
Q: Okay, so let me get this straight. The reason why you didn't list
16
the law library employment on the application to California was
17
because you didn't believe it was over a period of six months.
18
19
20
21
22
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?
23
A: I can't recall.
24
Q: Did you have any help with filling out the application
25
A: I can recall.
26
27
28
Q: What would have made it in your opinion relevant to put in

that application then?
A: What would have made what relevant?
Q: If the employment was for the actual first-year would you put
3
4
5
6
in the application?
A: If I felt that it fit within what was called for them by the
application, I would have put in.
Q: Well, what do you feel that wasn't called?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't understand your question.
Q: What did you feel you could leave out of the application in that
10
11
12
section?
A: Things that weren't called for by it.
13
Q: Can you define what you mean by that Mr. Coughlin.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I object for vagueness and a leading question.
15
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna sustain it in terms of vagueness.
16
17
Ms. Kagan: I will rephrase it.
18
Judge McElroy: Yeah, why don't you rephrase.
19
Q: Mr. Coughlin, you just testified that you didn't believe putting
20
21
22
23
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?
24
A: Yeah, the question called for listing employment that fit
25
within a certain description I didn't feel that the law library clerk job
26
checking books fit within that description called for by the question.
27
28
Q: Okay, let's turn to page eight of exhibit 1. Page 8 is entitled

credentials and licenses the first paragraph three have you ever
applied for or apply for then withdrawn an application or held a
license for business trade or profession other than as an attorney-at-law
the procurement of which require proof of good moral good character
and or examination, e.g., certified public accountant, patent
practitioner, or real estate broker you answered no to that section,
correct?
7
8
9
10
A: That's correct.
Q: And this was an application that you turned into the State Bar
or submitted September 28 2002?
11
A: Yes,
12
Q: Yet you took an exam for licensing before the U.S. Patent and
13
14
15
16
17
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
18
was a an appeal that I made that was never resolved because I passed
19
the subsequent tests, so I don't know whether I didn't pass it or not.
20
That was rendered moot, so I don't know whether I passed it or not.
21
Q: Okay but you passed the October 16th, 2002, test correct?
22
A: Yes.
23
24
25
26
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.
27
28
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 61, shall we? Its the application for
registration to practice before the USPTO, and stamped receive July 9 th,
2002. You see Exhibit 61.
4
5
6
7
A: Yes.
Q: Okay would it be fair to say that you submitted an application
that was filed or received July 9th, 2002?
A: I don't know.
Q: What don't you know Mr. Coughlin?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A: I'm not sure that would fit whether there's a more extensive
phase of the application, so I don't know.
Q: Wait, I don't understand your statement. My question was you
submitted this application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
which was received by the office July 9th, 2002, correct?
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
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?
27
28
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.
6
7
A: I don't have anything listed there.
Q: Why did you not list that?
A: I don't know. I don't know whether this qualifies as applying
10
for or having applied for, if the application phase has become past
11
tense, ie, applied would qualify rather than are you currently applying
12
for.
13
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
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q: You just decided to unilaterally not put the US patent

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 31st. 2004 isn't that correct?
Almost six months after you passed the examination?
A: I am not sure of that.
Q: Let's see, you passed the examination on October 4 th, 2002 that's
what you just testified to, correct?
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
6
7
review your application passed October 16th, 2002 examination for
registration can now be processed, you see that?

A: And your question?
9
10
Q: It says upon further review it's a letter dated March 28 th, 2003
11
to Zachary Coughlin from Shirley A. Brown, Paralegal Specialist, OED,
12
USPTO and it states upon further review your application passed
13
October 16, 2002 examination for registration can now be processed. So
14
you passed the October 16th, 2002 examination, correct?
15
A: I believe so.
16
Q: And you were notified that you passed as of March 20, 2003
17
18
correct?
A: No, I don't believe so. I knew I passed the exam prior that this
19
20
is saying that they are now going to license me.
21
22
23
24
Q: So you knew that you passed the exam long before March 20,
2003?
A: I don't know what long would qualify as.
25
Q: But, before this date?
26
A: I believe so, yes.
27
28
Q: Yet, you didn't inform the bar anything about the patent
examination or your licensing before May 31 st, 2004.
A: I don't know that to be true.
Q: Well let's look at Exhibit 32. This is your May 31 st, 2004 update
to the bar and on page one it states, approximately 3 paragraph down
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?
10
11
12
13
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
14
that so so your testimony is that you don't know whether or not you you
15
may have updated the bar before May 31st 2004.
16
A: I'm not sure.
17
Q: I read to you earlier that you signed off under penalty.
18
19
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: I would object to this, Your Honor, because I don't

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.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Well if that's what she's hanging her case on
24
something like this I just don't see where this rises to the level of these
25
proceedings.
26
27
Judge McElroy: Well she has to put in her case and she's putting
on her case of bad moral.
28
Mr. Coughlin: And this is what she is leading with?
Judge McElroy: Yes, this is what she is leading with, this is the
3
4
5
questions she is asking.

Mr. Coughlin: Some case.
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?
9
10
11
12
13
14
A: That's what that says right there, is that your question?

Judge McElroy: okay right now um why don't you answer this
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.
15
A: I believe I took it yes.
16
Q: But you didn't include that in your updated did you?
17
A: I'm not sure further I don't know that that is something
18
required in my update. And when you say update I don't know if you
19
mean just this one particular letter or the sum total of all the updates
20
I've given the bar in writing or on the phone or otherwise or that my
21
attorney provided.
22
23
Q: Did you include those dates in your update of May 31 st, 2004?
24
A: Which dates.
25
Q: The July 2002 date, the first time you took the patent bar?
26
27
28
A: You're asking me did I include that in my report?

Ms. Kagan: Yes.
A: In my update? I'm not sure.
Q: Well look at it right now you let me know whether or not you
3
4
5
6
7
see July 2002 in there.

A: I don't know that it is given in July.
Q: Earlier you testified that you took the July 2002 patent bar
and did not pass it.
A: Today, I did?
Ms. Kagan: Yes, you did. Was that true testimony?
10
11
12
13
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
14
Q: Did you take the April 2002 exam.
15
A: I believe so.
16
Q: so you took the April 2002 exam but you didn't include the,
17
dates of April 2002 through August 2002 in your update of May 31 st,
18
2004?
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
June 2002 and so we're talking April 2002 would be before June 2002.
So, it's not as though this is saying this covers from April toQ: But you put in the language yourself, correct, that during the
25
period of September 2002 through December 2002 you studied for and
26
passed the patent bar?
27
28
A: Right.
Q: You didn't include the April 2002 date did you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
A: Well, April doesn't fall between September and December. I

am not sure I understand your question.
Q: My question was, well actually strike that. Mr. Coughlin as of
April 2002, you had taken a patent bar exam?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance.
A: I believe so.
Q: You didn't pass that exam?
10
11
A: I have gone into that, I don't know that that's true.
12
Q: But you took it again you took the test again?
13
A: That is correct.
14
Q: But yet in your update to the California State Bar of May 31 st,
15
2004 you're only reference regarding your study and passage of the U.S.
16
Patent and Trademark Office bar exam is September 2002 through
17
December 2002, correct?
18
19
20
A: In that letter from May 31st, 2004, that is the only reference I
see to the patent bar exam.
21
Q: What I want you to do then is up tell me when you updated the
22
California State Bar regarding the on patent bar exam before this date.
23
A: I don't know that I did and I don't know that I didn't and I don't
24
25
26
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?
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
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?
A: When I was admitted in 2003, I was admitted as an agent, yes.
Q: And what are you today?
A: I am not certain.
Q: You've never looked to find out what your admission status is?
10
11
12
13
14
15
A: I'm not sure whether or not I have looked. I do not recall. I

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
16
subsequently is licensed by a jurisdiction, one of the jurisdictions in
17
this country as an attorney that you're qualified to be a patent
18
attorney. Whether or not there's something you need to do further to
19
get listed that way I'm not sure.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
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.
28
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule the objection. The objection is
1
2
would it surprise you, you can say.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: Would it surprise me? I'm not sure whether or not
it would.
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: So what's the next question? Do we have any more

questions in this area because-
Ms. Kagan: No, Your Honor, we can take a break.
Judge McElroy:Okay why don't we take a break until two o'clock
10
or 2:15.
11
Court Personnel: back on the record.
12
13
14
15
Q: Mr. Coughlin were you cited for failure to appear in relation to

traffic citation Las Vegas township Justice Court Clark County
citation number 1-02053878-a.
A: I am not sure, do you have an exhibit I could reference that I
16
17
could look at it?

Q: Well, do you recall receiving a notice that you failed to appear
18
19
to a court date regarding a traffic violation from December 2 nd, 1999?
20
A: I have only very vague memory.
21
Q: And what is your vague memory?
22
23
A: That I might have had some traffic violation.
24
Q: Where you provided a notice a failure to appear in relation to
25
26
that?
A: I don't remember.
27
28
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?
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
failure to appear from the court regarding that case? Do you ever recall
receiving a notice of a failure to appear in court?
Mr. Coughlin: You mean from any court ever?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure.
15
Q: Did you know that you had a duty to fill out your application
16
under Exhibit 1, page 12, under the section titled convictions where it
17
states in answering the following questions you should include all such
18
incidents and convictions no matter how minor the incident. Traffic
19
violations which must be reported under this question include failure
20
to appear, driving without a license, driving with a suspended license,
21
and reckless driving as well as all traffic violations that resulted in a
22
misdemeanor or felony conviction. Did you know that you had a duty to
23
report these these incidents to the State Bar?
24
25
26
A: No, I wouldn't say I did.

Q: You checked No, under conditions on page 12, correct?
27
Mr. Coughlin: Under 12.1?
28
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: For 12.1, I checked no.
Q: As well as 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4?
3
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
would be something that should
be included in this?
A: I don't know if traffic means moving or non-moving. For
16
instance, if one of those was for not having proof of insurance, I don't
17
know if that-
18
19
20
Q: So did you have a question about the what the application was
asking you?
21
A: I'm not sure.
22
Q: So what you're talking about is your not sure that the traffic
23
violations are you talking about reading it now you're not sure or at the
24
time that you filled it out.
25
26
27
28
A: Probably both.
Q: Did you ever ask anyone for any assistance and filling out your
application?
A: I can't remember.
Q: Were you convicted of speeding in Fallon on a January 9 th, 2003
3
4
5
6
7
and Fallon Justice Court citation number R115317.

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
10
11
12
13
14
15
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.
16
A: I'm not sure.
17
Q: You're not sure whether or not you provided that?
18
19
20
A: I think the State Bar might have asked for DMV printout at
some point. I can't recall.
21
Q: Let's turn to page 13 of exhibit 1 and the second section of
22
thirteen states bondedness, discharge of obligation, indebtedness
23
deafness and section 13.5 specifically asked do you owe and any debts
24
including student loans that are past due, include those barred by the
25
statute of limitations and past due credit account balances. Do you see
26
that question you answered no to that section?
27
A: Correct.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: So as of September 2002, you had no student loans that were

outstanding?
A: That are past due? Is what I understand it to say.
Q: What do you understand past due to mean?
A: The common usage. I'm not sure what I understand it to mean,
but I believe past due as I've heard it used doesn't mean you have a
debt, it means you've had a debt that you have not made the current
payment on as of a certain time.
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?
16
A: Yes, I don't know that that means they were past due.
17
Q: And at that time how much approximately did you owe?
18
A: I'm not certain.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q: Well, in your application to the Nevada State Bar Exhibit 4, on

page 19 going to page 28 states under a statement for question 38 that's
a little more than midway down it says yes I have student loans
outstanding US Department of Education and gives the address amount
borrowed as of yet $26,897 dollars. Then you state on top of page 20 no
monthly payment yet as loans deferred no interest yet as loan is
subsidized deferment until graduation. Were those statements correct?
27
A: I believe so.
28
Q: Was your student loan actually deferred until graduation?
A: I believe so.
Q: And was $26,897 the amount of your student loan as of filing
3
4
5
this application in Nevada?

A: I'm not certain, but I would believe so.
Q: Have you started paying on your student loans.
A: I'm not certain whether I have any payments yet.
Q: Is the lone still in deferment.
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: I would object to this Your Honor.
11
Judge McElroy: What would be the objection?
12
Mr. Coughlin: Privacy.
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: And I would object based on relevancy.
16
Judge McElroy: What's the offer of proof in terms of relevancy?
17
Ms. Kagan: Your honor, Mr. Coughlin checked that he had no
18
outstanding student loans the time that he filed his application in
19
September of 2002.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, the language was not outstanding it

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
that are past due?. So it seems to me that some that are past due are
included in student loans but anyway that's just an interpretation
other people interpret it differently. Anyway the question is in terms
of the Nevada. I mean the problem is the Nevada application says do
you have any student loans outstanding. It's clearly better written
than the California application.
Ms. Kagan: Clearly.
4
5
6
7
8
Judge McElroy: And that's probably the problem throughout in

terms of the application for California it's a lot more vague than the
Nevada one, so anyway why don't you just ask the question as it relates
to why don't you repeat the question.
Ms. Kagan: So as of the time of submitting your application for
10
admission to the State Bar in September of 2002 did you have any, in
11
your opinion, any student loans that were past due?
12
A: Not as I understand past due to mean.
13
Q: As of today's date do you have any student loans that are past
14
due?
15
A: Not under the definition that I understand past due to be.
16
17
Q: Do you have outstanding student loans?
18
A: I owe money on student loans. I guess that means outstanding
19
but they're not past due, and I'm sorry are they in deferment right now
20
yes.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q: How long are in deferment until?

A: I'm not sure.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, on exhibit 1 page 14 under the section chemical
dependency you checked no correct?
A: That's correct. Under the section that says have you been
27
diagnosed or treated for a chemical dependency that would currently
28
interfere with your ability to practice law I checked no.
Q: Why did you check no?
A: Because I believe that to be the correct answer.
3
4
5
6
7
Q: At the time that you filled out this application and submitted
it in September of 2002 did you believe that you had a problem with
alcohol?
A: Objection in the relevance given that this question she's
referring to states: that would currently interfere with your ability to
practice law and her question is broader than that.
10
11
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.
12
Q: Section 14.5 states have you been diagnosed or treated for
13
chemical dependency that would currently interfere with your ability
14
to practice law. And you checked no?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: That's right.
Q: As of September 2002, did you believe that you had a problem
with alcohol?
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
you considered yourself to be a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous?
A: I am not sure.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q: Do you remember making that statement to the Committee of

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

Q: Well I'm just asking whether or not you were telling the truth
that at the time of January 1st 2002 you became a sober member of
Alcoholics Anonymous.
A: I would say the same thing. I don't know if that's a true or false
20
question. I don't know how you can know for certain whether or not you
21
are are not.
22
Q: Were you lying to the Committee?
23
A: No, I don't believe so.
24
25
Q: Then what was the purpose of making that statement?
26
A; I'm not sure.
27
Q: Were you attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in
28
January of 2002?
Q: Why were you attending those meetings.
3
4
5
6
A: I'm not sure.

Q: Why did you tell the Committee that you were a sober member
of Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Was it because you're trying to explain some of the behavior
9
10
11
12
that took place in 2001 while you were in law school?

A: I am not sure.
Q: In fact, don't you believe that alcohol caused some of behavior
13
that occurred in 2001?
14
A: I am not sure.
15
Q: At the time that you filed your application with the State Bar
16
of California in September 2002, were you still attending Alcoholics
17
Anonymous meetings? Yet, you didn't include that information in your
18
application, did you?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: I don't know why you would ask that.

Q: I'm just asking a question. You didn't include that information
in your application did you?
A: I don't think I included that in my application.
Ms. Kagan: Well, review it please let me know.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
Mr. Coughlin: Can you define treatment?
Q: Have you had any medical treatment in relation to alcohol
abuse.
A: I don't believe so, can you explain what you mean by medical
treatment?
Q: Have you gone to a doctor regarding your alcohol abuse?
A: No.
Q: Do you consider yourself to be an alcoholic, Mr. Coughlin.
A: I am not sure.
3
4
Q: Do you consider yourself to have a problem with alcohol?
A: I am not sure.
Q: How would you describe your relationship with alcohol?
A: Well, I don't drink, so- Can you be more specific?
8
9
Q: I asked for your description of your relationship with alcohol.
10
A: Well I don't drink.
11
Q: Would you consider that alcoholism is in your genetics?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna sustain the objection as vague.

Q: Have you ever made statements to anyone that alcoholism is in
your genetics?
A: I am not sure.
Q: Isn't it true that you actually told the Committee
Judge McElroy: If you made the statement, it's not irrelevant, so
I'm going to overrule it.
Q: Turn to Exhibit 1, page 4, the application states moral
24
character information Rule 10, applicant has a continuing duty to
25
update in writing responses to questions under the moral character
26
section of the application whenever there is an addition to or change
27
information previously furnished. Rule 6 section 7 of the rules correct
28
you understand that sentence when filled out this application did you
understand that you had a duty to update your application in writing?
You understand that you were to update your application whenever
there was in addition to or change in information previously furnished
and you signed this application under penalty of perjury correct?
5
6
7
A: Correct.
Q: Did you understand that section of the application.
A: Yes.
Q: Did you understand you had a duty to update your application
10
11
12
13
14
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.
15
A: Yes.
16
Q: And, you signed this application under penalty of perjury,
17
18
19
20
21
22
correct?
A: I believe so.
A: Okay Mr. Coughlin under the address section of the application
starting on page three the last address that you listed was 4487 Los
Reyes, Las Vegas, Nevada and that was 02/06/02, correct?
23
(audio recording is unintelligible)
24
Q: You turn to Exhibit 24. Was that your current address?
25
26
27
28
(unintelligible)
Q: And you didn't provide another update of your addresses until
September 15, 2003 correct.
A: You got some letters from March 2003, right?
Ms. Kagan: If you can point them out.
3
4
5
Judge McElroy: So you're saying just excuse me no update of the

address until September 15th 2003?
Q: Exactly as represented in Exhibit 25 which I believe if you look
I'll just start with that Exhibit 25 is that your update of September 15 th,
2003 and it states your new address is 631 Humboldt, Reno, Nevada
89509?
A: Your questions is, is that is that an update I did? Yes, I believe
10
11
12
so.
Q: And let's turn to Exhibit 24 that's a letter by sent by Kathy
13
Crary to you dated September 9th, 2003 stating that you have two
14
addresses on file one in Reno Nevada as used above and one on the
15
computer system with the State Bar of California on Madera Road,
16
Sacramento Please notify State Bar admissions at address below and
17
confirm your correct mailing address, correct? So in response to that
18
letter you provided an update on September 15 2003 of your new
19
address?
20
21
22
23
24
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
25
wasn't the case. I don't know why her later would reference Madera
26
Road if she had not been updated as to it.
27
28
Q: Well isn't that a request for you to provide your current

address?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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?
A: Yes. I believe so.
Q: Then after that date of September 15th, 2003 you did not provide
an update of your address until February 15th, 2007, correct?
A: No that's incorrect, I believe there is a number of
10
correspondences between myself and the State Bar which gave my
11
addresses.
12
Q: And during that time period from September 2003 to February
13
2007 you had four different addresses as reflected in your application
14
update that is Exhibit 3 page 2 correct?
15
16
17
18
A: I believe so.
Q: From November 2003 to April 2004, you lived at 4263
greenhorn court Reno Nevada
19
A: I believe so.
20
Q: From April 2004 through October 2004 you lived at 1044 West
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
A: approximately.
Q: From May 2006 until the last updated February 2007 you lived
at 945 West 12 street Reno Nevada
A: Yes.
Q: you currently live there?
3
4
5
6
7
A: Yes.
Q: What did you understand your duty to update your
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
address
the last employment that you noted in this application was June 2002
10
11
12
13
14
Q: Exhibit 1 pages four and five under employment history
at Perry and Spann?

Q: And you did not provide an update of your employment history
from filing that application until May 31 st 2004 correct?
15
A: No, I don't believe that's correct.
16
Q: You believe you provided an update of your employment
17
18
19
20
21
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
22
letterheads and from letters around that time was indicated. And
23
you're saying from 2004, whereas there was letters from 2003 to the bar,
24
right, saying I left this job.
25
Ms. Kagan: Okay, we'll get to that job in on in a minute. I
26
apologize. Let me change my question. You did not provide the State
27
Bar with an update of your employment history from May 31 st 2004
28
through February 15th, 2007?
Q: My question is do you recall providing an update to the State
3
4
5
Bar on May 31st 2004?

A: Is there an exhibit you can reference?
Q: Yes there is that would be Exhibit 32.
A: I believe I provided this but your question was-
Q: Right ,so after this date May 31st 2004 you did not provide
another update regarding your employment history until February 15,
10
11
12
13
14
15
2007, is that correct?

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?
16
A: I don't know that you can say that's correct.
17
Q: That's exactly from your update in your application, exhibit 3
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
24
Q: So approximately according to page three lengths of time
25
employed to from I performed legal research and writing for Mr. Hall a
26
variety of times between may 2003 to the present. Was that a true
27
statement at the time that you made it.
28
A: Yes I believe so.
1
2
3
4
5
6
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?
Q: That you were working to present?
A: I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying?
Q: Did you update your application to include that you were
9
10
11
12
13
working with Tom Hall to present?

A: When?
Q: Between May of 2004 until February 2007?
A: I don't know that there was a time at which that would have
14
been necessary. I don't know whether or not I did or not but if I hadn't
15
done any work for him for quite a while, then-
16
Q: Okay, you were employed by Hale, Lane, Peak, Dennison and
17
Howard from July 17, 2005 to December 6th, 2005, yet you did not
18
provide an update to the State Bar regarding that employment until
19
February 15th, 2007, correct?
20
A: I don't believe that's correct, I had a good deal of conversations
21
with LAP about that job and believe I my attorney was aware of that
22
job and I think it's possible that the State Bar had correspondence
23
related that job.
24
25
26
27
28
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?
A: I'm not sure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q: What about the fact that LAP may have known about that do
you think that satisfies your duty to update the State Bar?
A: I'm not sure.
Judge McElroy: We'll take a five minute. We're back on track on
the record back.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you ever make the statement that alcoholism
is in your genetics.
A: I am not sure.
Q: Then turn to Exhibit 12 page 10 of the informal conference did
11
you make the statement: I would just like you to know, to impress on
12
you that I really have changed, you know? I've gone to probably five or
13
six hundred AA meetings, I've listened to hundreds of speaker meetings
14
on a tapes. Alcoholism is in my genetics, you know? It's something that
15
really exacerbates my character defects. Even if you took out the
16
alcohol I would still have character defects, still have the alcoholism as
17
part of it. Did you make that statement?
18
19
A: I believe so.
20
Q: Was that statement true at the time that you made it.
21
A: I don't know that's a statement capable of being qualified as
22
23
24
25
26
27
true or false.
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.
28
1
2
3
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.
8
9
10
11
12
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.
13
Q: Okay, let's turn back to exhibit 1, page six under the title self-
14
employment question 6.1 have you ever in in business for yourself, you
15
checked no, correct?
16
17
18
19
A: That is correct.
Q: Sometime after filing the application you actually started your
own business called Coughlin memory foam mattress and pillows?
20
A: Yes.
21
Q: When did you start that company.
22
A: I'm not sure it was it was either in 2003 or 2004.
23
24
25
26
27
Q: Okay, in your exhibit 32, in your May 31 st, 2004 update you list
the dates of employment as October 2003-present, I started Nevada
business and have been a sole proprietor owning and running a
business, DBA Zachary Coughlin memory foam beds and pillows
28
correct, so as of this update in October 2003 you had started the
company correct.
A: Yes.
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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,
16
if it means getting a business license the day is which you got a
17
business license that's one thing if it's the day which had the
18
germination of an idea to start a company began taking steps towards
19
doing so that could be another thing.
20
Q: In your resume you stated under Coughlin Memory Foam, I
21
owned and operated the sole proprietorship selling memory foam
22
mattresses and pillow, and all legal matters, designed and maintained
23
a website, handled customer service matters, coordinated shipping and
24
warehousing, and utilized eBay and other internet channels to attract
25
customers, and sold mattresses to customers in over 30 states. Is that an
26
accurate statement of your running that business from March 2003-
27
2005 at that point?
28
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.
5
6
7
8
9
10
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.
11
A: Yes.
12
Q: 11.3 have any judgments been filed against you you checked no
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
to that.
A: Correct.
Q: Now in February 15th 2007 you provided which is represented in
exhibit 3 your update of that date on page five you list three civil
actions and proceedings or judgments are filed against you correct?
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
22
exhibit 62 that is River Arms Apartments vs. Zachary Coughlin
23
Washoe County case number REV2005-001396 correct, that's one of the
24
unlawful detainer actions, and that was for a default in payment of
25
rent at 1255 Jones street number 132 Reno Nevada
26
27
A: From what I understand, but I'm a little unclear on on how I

could have two of those you know,
28
Q: That wasn't the question the question was with that in relation
1
2
to an unlawful detainer at that address?
A: I believe so.
4
5
6
Q: And there was a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of

$660?
A: I believe the 1396 was for $720.
Q: Well if you look at Exhibit 62 that is Rev2005-001396 says total
9
10
11
12
due $660.
A: Yeah I see where that says $660.
Q: And that that payment is still outstanding.
13
A: Yes.
14
Q: Have you made any payments toward that $660.
15
A: I don't believe so.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Yet, your February 15th, 2007 update that's the first time that
you provided that information to the State Bar regarding that case is
that not true?
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?
Q: In fact, are you aware that the State Bar filed a response in this
matter in 2006 is moral character proceeding.
A: Yes.
Q: Did you receive a copy of that?
A: Yes.
3
4
5
6
Q: In that response the State Bar actually list this case as well as
the the two others that you've got failed to put in your application and
update, correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: And you didn't actually provide an update of this until after
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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
needed to update my previously filed moral character application.
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?
22
A: I was aware there was a possibility, yeah. I needed to go over it
23
with a fine-tooth comb. I didn't even realize the unlawful detainers fit
24
within that. I didn't realize they were judgments. I don't recall ever you
25
know.
26
27
Q: Is that why you didn't update your application until February

15, 2007 regarding those cases?
28
Mr. Coughlin: Regarding unlawful detainers?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mr. Coughlin: I knew I had been evicted but I didn't know legally
what that meant in terms of there had been I guess a judgment for an
unlawful detainer and that amounted to something that fit within this
application. So for those two matters that was more a case of me not
knowing quite what those amounted to.
Q: Did you ever ask anybody what those amounted to?
9
10
A: No, I don't believe so.
11
Q: As you are referring to both of them, let's go back to Exhibit 63
12
that is the case of River Arms Apartments v. Zachary B Coughlin
13
Washoe County case number REV2006-00909 related to an unlawful
14
detainer for default and payment of rent at 1255 Jones Street 132 Reno
15
Nevada in the amount of $720.
16
17
18
19
20
A: Yes. I still don't understand how there can be two separate ones
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
actions, I don't understand that.
21
Q: As a today's date have you made any payments for the $720.
22
A: Other than the damage deposit was kept in its entirety which
23
was I believe $300 or $400.
24
25
Q: But my question is did you ever make payment toward the

$720?
26
27
28
A: Well I believe that damage deposit would be applied towards
that so other than that, no, but that would amount to a payment I
believe.
4
5
6
7
Q: Do you know that for certain.

A: No.
Q: Okay, now my question was if you look at page 1, there's a total
of $720, have you ever made payment and that is if you look at it due
date of rent $595, total late charges applicable $50, due date of 3/1/06,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
$75 a total of seven hundred twenty dollars, correct?

A: That's what I don't understand is it's like these are two separate
actions but they're both dated from March 1st.
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.
17
Q: As of today have you ever made any payments towards-
18
A: I don't know how why they can go back and so you didn't pay a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
26
exhibit 60 and that is shipping services DBA Uni-shippers v. Zachary
27
Coughlin individually DBA Coughlin Memory Foam from Washoe
28
County case number RSC2005-00301, and that's a small claims case
against you for non-payment of shipping services and there was a
judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $5,161?
A: Well, I think it might have been for $5,000, the amount of over
$5,000 I believe is some sort of cost as I understand it small-claims
actions are limited to $5,000.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q: Have you made any payments towards that $5,161, Mr.

Coughlin?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Do you have any evidence with you of payment that you made
on that?
A: No.
Q: Yet, you knew about that case as of March 18th, 2005, correct?
15
A: I'm not sure, is that the date the case went to trial?
16
Q: No, actually that's the date that you filed the letter with Judge
17
Schroeder in that matter which is exhibit 60 page 22 in March 11, 2005.
18
Dear Judge Schroeder, I'm writing to request an opportunity to defend
19
my case though I was not present on the date specified in the order
20
RSC2005-000301. So would it be fair to say that as of March 11, 2005 you
21
were aware that there was a case filed against you in this matter?
22
23
24
25
26
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?
27
Ms. Kagan: Well, let's read it, Exhibit 1 which we went over
28
earlier page 11 states civil actions and administrative proceedings have
you ever been a party to are you presently a party to any civil action or
administrative proceeding you checked no correct.
A: Yes.
4
5
6
Q: And you didn't update that section until February 15 th, 2007
correct.
A: Well as I mentioned before I referred to it on the phone with
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
you.
Q: Do you have any documentation that effect?
Q: So, why didn't you update if you knew about it since March
2005 why did it take you approximately two years to update your
application to include that information.
A: I am not sure I think at some point I wasn't I didn't remember
16
exactly what needs to be reported within this application I was more
17
sure things like you know if you got arrested you need to report that
18
but this is something a bit more tenuous in a bit further into the fine
19
print in the application in my opinion. Also, at some point I seem to
20
remember thinking there might have been something in there about
21
this and then I wasn't sure whether I had received the final
22
adjudication in that matter and whether or not that meant I could still
23
appeal it and therefore not fit within what's called for by the
24
application. However as I read 11.2 it says have you ever been a party to
25
so I think that would mean whether or not I had any appeal that was
26
something that would have been needed to be reported and I don't think
27
as of the date of this application it says you need to report it with an X
28
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
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
that was still pretty late in the game and pretty far out from when it
should have been reported.
7
8
Q: In fact you didn't report this until after the State Bar filed its
response setting forth this case correct?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A: Right, which was surprising me because you had said you

would give me an opportunity to update my application and refer to the
things we discussed on the phone and then at some point I guess you
decided you had to get something filed so I wasn't maybe either giving
quite the opportunity or if I was I didn't take advantage of it quickly
enough.
Q: Do you have any documentation of these telephone
16
17
conversations you had with me, Mr. Coughlin.

A: Other than phone records showing that we talked on the phone
18
19
several times, I don't believe.
20
Q: I'd like you to turn to Exhibit 1, back to the section regarding
21
bondedness, discharge of obligation, indebtedness on page 13 and I'd like
22
to discuss something other than the student loans under 13.5. do you
23
owe any debts including students that are past due, you checked no
24
correct? Actually include those barred by statute of limitations and
25
past credit account balances. You see that's the part of it you checked
26
no?
27
28
A: That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
eight.
A: yes.
Q: Ok so let's look at the first one of argon agency for 470 dollars
9
10
11
12
13
past due October 2006. So February 2007 is the first time you have you
notified the bar?
A: I believe so yes.
Q: Why didn't you notified them back in October 2006?
14
A: I'm not sure I should have.
15
Q: Would it be fair to say that let's see the next one AFI $148 past
16
17
18
19
due as of October 2006, correct?

A: If that's the sort of thing called for yes.
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
23
24
25
due as of December 2006, correct.

A: That is correct.
Q: And the first update you provide is February 2007.
26
A: Right, and that is what, a month and a half later or something?
27
Q: River Arms Apartments $1532 passed due as of November 2006,
28
correct?
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
6
7
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.
10
11
12
13
Q: Yet February 2007 is the first time you updated your

application regarding that?
A: I believe so.
14
Q: Wells Fargo Bank $836 past due as of November 2005.
15
A: Yes.
16
Q: And February 2007 is the first time you update your
17
18
19
application to include that?

A: I believe so.
20
Q: Are all these that's still outstanding Mr. Coughlin.
21
A: I don't know what written off means if that means it's no
22
longer outstanding but if it doesn't then yes I believe most if not all of
23
these are still outstanding, however I think the charter communication
24
debts might have been taken care.
25
26
27
28
Q: I'm on this exhibit at page 5 under Section 13.5 past due debts
you right I incurred debts in addition to the unlawful detainer actions
mentioned in section 11.2. Steps taken to address the debts, I've tried to
get my law licenses in California and Nevada so that I can repay these
debts and to work my program of recovery towards the same goal. Was
that a correct statement at the time that you made that?
3
4
5
A: yeah I believe so.

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
8
9
10
11
12
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.
13
A: Well getting hired is you know that's one thing, its been
14
difficult to find work and for a time there I had gastritis so that made
15
it difficult, and then there's this proceeding, which I don't know if you
16
haven't gone through something like this in in a first-person type way I
17
don't know if you can really appreciate the extent to which it kind of
18
involves your life and I think it's illustrative to look at when I got
19
gastritis I was working full-time in litigation setting and heavily
20
involved with dealing with the LAP program working with them and
21
so I think I look back at that and in considering this hearing coming
22
up, while, I've tried to find work, I've also realized that this hearing is
23
something that is take something out of somebody.
24
Q: What litigation firm were you talking about?
25
A: Hale Lane.
26
Q: Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you are let go from Hale
27
Lane and you were advised that it was not a good fit?
28
Mr. Coughlin: I object to that on the basis that I signed a
1
2
severance agreement with Hale Lane and it seems to have some
language in it that indicates that I am either not allowed to or to be
subject some for penalty for discussing my employment with Hale
Lane.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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?
13
A: Correct.
14
Q: You never mentioned anything about gastritis at the time that
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
gastritis at that time I know but I didn't get treated by Dr. Hinojosa
until following the termination of that employment.
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
23
situation where you know you could say well the LAP program is
24
designed to do a lot of good and it probably does do a lot of good but in
25
some instances-
26
27
Ms. Kagan: I'm gonna to object to this on the basis there is no

question posed.
28
1
2
3
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
Kathy Crary from Zachary Coughlin and turn to page 3 of this letter
you write: also I have been let go from my position at Schuering
Zimmerman and Scully in light my recent arrest and hope this letter
complies with my duty to keep the bar informed as to my employment
history. Did you write this?
9
10
A: Yes.
11
Q: Were the statements contained therein true?
12
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure because I don't know exactly what
13
14
Schuering Zimmerman's motivation was for letting go.

Q: But you wrote that in a letter to the bar correct? I've been let
15
go from my position at Schuering Zimmerman and Scully in light of
16
my recent arrest and hope this letter complies with my duty to keep the
17
bar informed of my employment history?
18
19
20
A: I don't know that that means that that's the rationale

Schuering Zimmerman gave me for letting me go.
21
Q: But, that's what you informed the bar, correct?
22
A: No, that depends on how you read that sentence.
23
Q: How do you read it, Mr. Coughlin?
24
25
26
27
A: Also 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
28
history. And that would go back to your earlier statement about me
not having informed-
3
4
5
6
Ms. Kagan: Okay, I struck that question.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, how would I read that? It doesn't say
Schuering Zimmerman told me that that was why?
Ms. Kagan: Okay, well let's move on to-
Mr. Coughlin: In fact, I don't believe that was why they told me.
Ms. Kagan: Oh, that wasn't why?
10
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: I don't think so.

Q: Why were you terminated?
A: They told me it was because they needed me to have a Nevada
14
license and the abeyance order that had been issued December 18 th,
15
2002, which I didn't get it until after moving there and starting work I
16
think was why they said well we need to let you go because you haven't
17
a Nevada license.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?
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 me go, I still
wouldn't be sure why they let me go.
28
Q: But you didn't put that your letter to the State Bar, I'm not sure
why they let me go, you said, you wrote in light of my recent arrest,
correct?
4
5
6
7
8
9
A: I'm not going to say that thatQ: I'm asking for what you wrote in your letter.
A: You're asking me to agree with what your impression is of
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
10
about the Nevada licensing at that time or whether you wrote in light
11
of my recent arrest.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question, you lost me onMs. Kagan: Let's move on. Exhibit 15 page 63 is a letter dated
February 23rd, 2003 to the State Bar of Nevada. So, this is the same date
as your update to the State Bar of California only this is to the State
Bar of Nevada and in this letter you write: also I have been let go from
my position at Schuering, Zimmerman and Scully I was told that was
let go because they need someone who is licensed in Nevada and that
the Supreme Court's deferment order was too far out for them to keep
me employed, correct?
22
A: I believe so. That's what's written on that page.
23
Q: Is your letter to the Nevada State Bar Mr. Coughlin.
24
A: I believe so.
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: I request that Exhibit 15 just page 63 be moved into

evidence Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 15 page 63 is admitted into evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: I object on basis of relevance, Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: Its overruled.
3
4
5
6
7
Ms. Kagan: So on the same day that you wrote the State Bar that
you were let go from that firm in light of your recent arrest you wrote
to the Nevada State Bar stating that you were let go because they
needed someone who was licensed in Nevada, correct?
A: Those are the words that are in either of those letters.
Q: All right, let's move on to exhibit 1 page 13 regarding scholastic
10
discipline, under this section have you been dropped suspended expelled
11
or otherwise discipline by any school for any reason other than
12
academic performance and you check yes. If you have state the reasons
13
fully below providing the name of the school the date and the reasons
14
for discipline in the final disposition and you write I was fined $100 by
15
UNLV for moving a computer monitor and keyboard 10 feet to attach
16
my computer for an hour in December 1st, 2002 University University of
17
Nevada Las Vegas correct?
18
19
20
21
22
23
A: True.
Q: Actually the conduct took place on October 11th 2001, correct?
A: So, yes I did write that and you are saying the incident took
place on October 11th, 2001? I don't know I'm not sure.
Q: Ok let's look at on exhibit 58 page five and this is a letter or a
24
memorandum to Dr. Rebecca Mills from Christine Smith dated October
25
27 2001 it's cc'd Zachary Coughlin. Do you recognize this letter?
26
A: Yes.
27
28
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.
4
5
6
7
A: Yes I do.
Q: Is that the hundred dollars that you paid for the computer
incident?
A: yes it is.
Q: Ok I moved to have exhibit 58 pages 5 and 7 into evidence.
10
11
12

13
Judge McElroy: So, Exhibit 58 pages five and seven are admitted.
14
Q: Okay, so it states in this exhibit page 5 of the exhibit on
15
evening of October 11 2001, Zachary Coughlin disconnected the
16
computer monitor keyboard and mouse which are set up in the
17
microforms room of the UNLV law library see attachment
18
memorandum of Matthew Wright. This machine is not for general
19
student use we have two computer labs with over 30 computer stations
20
as well as carrels with network connections. Mr. Coughlin chose not to
21
use these facilities and decided to dismantle without authorization an
22
entire computer station dedicated to the purpose of reviewing
23
microforms in the microforms room. So, is that a fair statement of what
24
occurred on October 11 2001 regarding the computer?
25
26
27
A: I would say it's not a real complete statement, no.

Q: Was the computer for general student use?
28
1
2
3
4
5
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.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: It's kind of a somewhat complicated reason as I remember it.

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
prodigy at that point had become corrupted or in some way was no
longer functional and so when I called the tech support they told me
that I needed to get another copy of that prodigy program reinstalled so
I could start using the internet to get home and I couldn't, the only
place I had to go get a copy when I could get on the internet was at
school but I couldn't get a copy of that program because it was too large
to save to it the floppy disk and we didn't have CD burners back then or
these USB drives. We didn't have those available to us back then so
what I had to do is I had to take my home computer to school and try
downloaded the prodigy program on my computer at school I try to do
that in the rooms that they're speaking of these computer labs but for
some reason I wasn't able to get it to work there and so after trying that
again I tried this other computer that was outside the computer lab and
you know for about 10 minutes I need a monitor to use with the
computer I brought from home to get on the internet and download this
program so I can fix my computer and use it at home and I did that.
And that's what happened.
Q: Did you have authorization to use that computer for that
1
2
purpose?
A: I don't believe.
4
5
6
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
7
8
Friday though so.

Q: Let's move on exhibit 2 page 2, now let's go through this again.
9
10
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
mine if it's that were the case anybody who put my letterhead atop of a
letter could write any letter they wanted and and say it was mine.
Q: Let's talk about March 19 2003 at that and that date did you
live at 1044 West first street Reno Nevada 89503.
21
A: I think so and I'm the first page of that exhibit it's entitled
22
amendment to application and it states I and you filled in your name as
23
Zach Coughlin understand that my application whether filed as a
24
registrant or as an applicant for admission to practice law in California
25
is a continuing application for this reason I'm amend my application
26
with the following additional facts and information which correctly
27
and fully bring the previously filed application amendments to that
28
application to a current status. This amendment applies to items blank
of my application as follows and you write please see enclosed letter. Is
the letter you referring to the same date as the title page 3/19/03.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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?
A: I believe it was but it depends on what your defining as
treatment.
13
Q: What about treatment programs?
14
A: If your saying going to an AA meeting is treatment, then, but I
15
16
17
18
19
20
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.
21
Q: In fact, Mr. Coughlin as part of your conviction in March 2003,
22
you were sentenced to attend 8 AA meetings by June 10th, 2003 correct?
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: That's correct.
Q: That's represented by Exhibit 67 page five Superior Court of
California County of Sacramento minute order header preceding case
number 03t00937 correct?
A: Correct.
Q: On March 11 2004 you pled nolo contendere to a violation of
section vehicle code section 23103 dry reckless non-alcohol related
correct?
4
5
6
7
A: That's correct.
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
10
11
12
13
you didn't include that information did you?

A: Objection, relevance?
14
Mr. Coughlin: I didn't include what?
15
Q: That you were sentenced to attend eight Alcoholics Anonymous
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
20, in the letter to Zachary Coughlin from Kathy Crary dating March 5,
2003. In the letter it states please provide the following a copy of the
police report from the arresting agency regarding your January 2003
arrest for DUI. Please describe your relationship with alcohol and/or
drugs. This should include when you started drinking or using drugs
at what age and where and outline your current drinking habits and or
drug usage. This statement should list any referrals or rehabilitative
programs in which you have been enrolled for treatment of abuse
issues. Keep in mind that the rules regulating admissions to practice
the barn cap practice law in California provides an applicant has a
continuing duty to update response to questions and all applications
whenever there is an addition or change the information previously
furnished. Okay, did you receive this letter?
6
7
8
9
10
11
A: Yes.
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?
12
Q: No, no, no, I am talking about the March 19, 2003 letter.
13
Mr. Coughlin: That the police report was included with? Wasn't
14
15
16
17
18
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?
19
Ms. Kagan: Well, exactly let's see what was included in the letter-
20
Mr. Coughlin: To the extent that that that fits within a referral
21
which I'm not sure that is a referral to a treatment program as spelled
22
forth here.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: Actually, umMr. Coughlin: See, I don't know that going to AA meetings are
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?
A: She wanted a copy of the police report.
Ms. Kagan: Yes and what else?
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: She wanted me to describe my relationship with

alcohol or drugs okay and to list any referrals or rehabilitative
programs in which you have been enrolled for treatment.
Q: Did you understand what she was asking for?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: In response to that letter you submitted letter March 19 2003
10
11
12
13
14
correct?
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
15
Q: But you didn't put that in your letter did you?
16
A: If this police report is attached to my letter than as a total yes I
17
18
19
20
21
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?
22
Q: Regarding the AA attendance?
23
A: In the police report that I sent in?
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: No, Mr. Coughlin, my question is your letter.

Mr. Coughlin: But, I view my letter as what's included in the
envelope.
Q: Is it in this one-page letter, that is exhibit 2, page 2?
Judge McElroy: Here's what I say you're allowed to explain you
answer yes or no and explain it, is it in the letter, the reference to AA
meetings?
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: That the court is ordering me to go to some?
Judge McElroy: Yes, is that referenced in the letter?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't believe that's referenced in the letter, but
Page 2, Exhibit 2 states: I have included my arrest report in this letter,
10
so I'm referencing this arrest report which includes this court
11
sentencing me to that. Whether or not it goes on further in the letter to
12
spell that out I don't see that. A certified copy of the Minute Order is
13
included indicating the final disposition of my charge included in that
14
disposition is this AA meeting language, so I think that is open to
15
interpretation whether or not have included that in this letter.
16
Q: Mr. Coughlin isn't it true that you told the Committee at the
17
informal conference of July 8, 2004 that you were a sober member of
18
Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002?
19
20
A: I think those are words that I used, yes.
21
Q: That's not in this update of March 19 th, 2003 is it.
22
A: No.
23
Q: There's no reference to AA in this whole letter is there?
24
25
26
27
28
A: Well other than where it's referencing the Minute Order and
what's included in that Minute Order, no I don't believe so. But, I would
say that goes to highlight what I consider to be a rather rudimentary
understanding of alcoholism and AA on your part and that would be
that it seems that you feel that the minute someone goes to an AA they
become a member of AA and from there on their required to identify
themselves as such that there's really no room for looking into it or
exploratory type of investigation, its once you've done that your-
Q: Mr. Coughlin I am asking about statements you made at the
statement I'm a silver I've been a sober member of Alcoholics
Anonymous since January 1st, 2002, correct?
9
10
11
12
13
A: I believe so.
Q: Yet, you don't include that language in this letter did you? This
language this letter that is exhibit 2 page 2.
A: You can start going and not really feel you belong there. You
14
can start going and not really be on board with it. You can just be
15
going to see what you think about it, you know, and then, after the fact,
16
17
18
that was the germination of my recovery or that's where things started
19
to change or I started looking at things differently. But I don't think
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
A: Yeah, I think I did.
Q: Okay, and going back to Exhibit 20: Please describe your
relationship with alcohol and/or drugs. This should include when you
started drinking and using drugs at what age and where and outline
your current drinking habits and or drinking usage. This statement
should list any referrals or rehabilitative programs in which you have
been enrolled for treatment of abuse issues Okay, so that is March
2003, correct? And yet nowhere in Exhibit 2 do you mention that you
have been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, do you?
A: Well, actually if I'm giving you this in the police report that
10
says I have the attend meetings, then I guess that would mean that,
11
yes, I have been telling you I had been attending meetings.
12
13
14
Q: Where in the police report does it say that you've been a sober
member of Alcoholics Anonymous since January 1st, 2002?
15
16
17
A: I don't know that it does say that in the police report.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
25
know why you are asking that question as if there's a duty to say if
26
you've ever gone to an AA meeting, there's a duty to say you've gone to
27
an AA meeting? Is that what you're saying because if that's what's
28
being said here the precedents, then let's really say that so that nobody
ever goes to an AA meeting again, let's just get that out of the way,
because if they do go to AA meeting, then they need to report it to you
right, Susan, and then where do we go with that, you know? Judge
McElroy: Okay, what's the next question.
Q: Exhibit 2, page 2 second sentence: while I would like to point
out that I was not under the influence of any drug when I was pulled
over for having my seat belt unfastened, I must admit that I had
smoked marijuana in the weeks preceding my arrest. Is that a true
statement?
10
11
12
13
A: I believe so.
Q: Are you aware that the toxicology report found that you tested
positive for THC.
14
A: I believe so.
15
Q: And yet when you were asked that same question regarding-
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A: Positive for use within what? Within a 45 day window? Are

you saying there's any sort of specificity to when it said I used it or you
just saying in general?
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
23
understand it indicates that the person testing positive has been
24
exposed to THC within somewhere around 45 days within testing
25
positive.
26
27
Q: Okay what about the statement three paragraphs down, first

sentence. I started drinking alcohol in my early twenties and have
28
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
don't think it's a true or false statement, it is a completely subjective
statement. It's like telling someone you love them. Do you know
true/false that you love this person? Is it kind of shade of gray? Is it
something you have just kind of a gut feeling? You know? So if you're
asking me, is that true or not, I'm telling you that that seems to
highlight your rudimentary understanding of recovery again.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, the one that was a dry reckless?
Q: You were arrested for DUI, is that not true Mr. Coughlin?
20
A: I think so I think.
21
Q: Exhibited 69 is the arrest report. Now, were you under the
22
influence of any on drugs or alcohol the time you were arrested, Mr.
23
Coughlin?
24
25
26
27
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
the time that you were arrested on January 23 rd, 2003.
28
1
2
3
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?
5
6
Judge McElroy: No, we're talking about alcohol or illegal drugs.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, then, no.
7
8
9
10
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?
A: It is my opinion that I performed them all quite well.
Q: Well, isn't it, in fact, true that you failed every single sobriety
tests?
14
Mr. Coughlin: In fact true? I don't know what you mean by that.
15
Q: Mr. Coughlin, what's your basis for believing that you
16
17
18
19
performed them all?

Mr. Coughlin: That I was there and I was stone-cold sober and I
saw myself perform them.
20
Q: And in your opinion you passed the field sobriety test?
21
A: Yes.
22
23
24
25
Q: But the officer had the opinion that you failed the field
sobriety tests, correct?
A: I can't speak for the officer, that would be hearsay.
26
Q: Were you unsteady on your feet at the time of your arrest?
27
28
Q: Did you have bloodshot, watery eyes at the time of your arrest?
3
4
5
6

Q: Did you have a strong odor of marijuana emanating from your
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
20
A: I believe so.
21
Q: Have you smoked pot since January 2003?
22
A: I don't think so.
23
Q: Have you ever kept pot in your residence since January 2003.
24
25
26
27
28
A: I don't think so.

Q: How you ever kept anything used to smoke pot at your
residence since January 2003?
A: Objection, relevance.
Judge McElroy: What's the relevancy?
Ms. Kagan: I believe I have evidence of possible pot usage by Mr.
3
4
5
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?
9
10
Ms. Kagan: No.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Objection.
12
Ms. Kagan: That is the nature of impeachment, Your Honor.
13
Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't you ask the question, see what
14
15
16
17
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?
18
19
Q: Okay, let's go on to the arrest of October 14th, 2001, Exhibit 1
20
page 25 there's a page entitled 11.1 prior applications for admission to
21
practice law, second paragraph in October 2001, I was arrested outside a
22
movie theater I had entered the movie theater without paying, I have
23
no excuse for doing so, I was approached by two usher's at the movie
24
theater and asked to join them in the hallway, whereupon I left the
25
theater. The ushers gave chase yelling profanities at me. I was
26
perplexed as to why they reacted so and ran. The ushers chased me for
27
nearly 1-mile. I was later told by the movie theater usher's that they
28
were chasing me because I vaguely matched the description of someone
who had committed a series of infractions at the theater and that they
took my running as an indication of guilt. After a photograph of my
face was shown to the victims of the series of infractions, the victims
indicated that I was definitely not the person who committed the
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
10
charged with three misdemeanors: resisting arrest, evading a police
11
officer, and obstructing a police officer. All charges were dropped
12
completely with no conditions whatsoever. I was not ordered to pay any
13
fines or comply with any conditions. Immediately after the arrest, I
14
reported the incident to both my law school's administration and the
15
State Bar of Nevada. Did you write that statement?
16
17
18
19
20
A: I believe so.
Q: Was that statement true?
Mr. Coughlin: Every aspect of it are you referring to anything in
particular?
21
Q: Every aspect of it.
22
A: I believe so.
23
24
25
Q: Why did you run away from the ushers?

Mr. Coughlin: I would also object, I know that I've already entered
26
this but the application as I read it wouldn't even, and I believe this
27
goes to my candor, wouldn't have even required that I report this
28
because it didn't result in a conviction. So here I am I believe reporting
something more beyond what the application calls for me to report, you
know, and yet you you're saying I don't have candor. So here I am, I'm
coming up to you saying, you know, I'm looking at my drinking, I'm
reporting something that, an arrest that all charges were dropped that
I don't even believe the application calls for.
6
7
8
9
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, is this an objection?

Judge McElroy: So what's the question?
Ms. Kagan: The question had already been answered. My next
10
question was why did he run away from the ushers. I asked whether or
11
not these statements are true statements.
12
Judge McElroy: He indicated that they were true.
13
Mr. Coughlin: I also object based on relevance.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
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.
21
Judge McElroy: Okay, so you may cross-examine him on that.
22
Ms. Kagan: Isn't it true that the police officers actually yelled for
23
24
25
26
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.
27
28
Q: And in the statement you right I stopped running as soon as the
adrenaline and fear I felt from being chased by two large men yelling
profanities would allow?
4
5
6
7
A: Yes.
Q: Isn't it true that you were actually tackled by one of the police
officers.
A: I believe that's correct.
Q: And it took four officers to hold you down, Mr. Coughlin.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: I don't believe that's correct and I don't believe I really needed

to be tackled?
Q: But, you were tackled, correct?
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?
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.
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Exhibit 1, page 25 same exhibit page it goes on to say: secondly
1
2
the State Bar of Nevada informed me that another concern regarding
my application arose out of an academic dishonesty investigation that
was completely resolved in my favor in December of 2001, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Did you make that statement?
7
8
A: I did make that statement.
Q: Is that statement correct?
10
A: Can you tell me where that is again.
11
Ms. Kagan: It's a third paragraph first line.
12
13
A: I believed that that was correct when I wrote that.
14
Q: Yet the investigation actually ended with a formal warning,
15
didn't it.
16
A: That's something I'm unclear on.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Really, let's turn to Exhibit 53, a letter dated November 27 th,

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.
Mr. Coughlin: Is that P or R or Q?
Ms. Kagan: P.
Mr. Coughlin: Why does it say P and R, and then it says P and Q?
Q: Mr. Coughlin, under that section, is says number 1: You are to
consider this a formal letter of warning if you're found responsible for
similar violations of the Student Code your status as a student at
UNLV will be reconsidered, correct?
A: Once second, I need to review this: it appears that academic
dishonesty did not occur... spoke with several students remember seeing
you have the paper in class that day. I don't know because from what
I, he's not finding me responsible of anything, so I don't understand it
and then it was my understanding that they were alleging some sort of
10
academic dishonesty. I wasn't sure that they were saying that the
11
threatening occurred in that context I thought they were referring
12
more to the computer thing but I don't know. I mean? I'm sorry, your
13
question? To me, its like saying we're finding that you didn't do
14
anything and if you do that again, then you're in trouble. It's like:
15
what? I don't get it, you know? You didn't do anything but don't do it
16
again?
17
18
19
20
Q: Do you agree that the sentence says you are to consider this a
formal letter of warning, Mr. Coughlin?
A: Well, see I don't know what that's referring to. If that's
21
referring to this moving the computer thing or? In which case that's in
22
my application right when I told you about the computer thing in my
23
application, so. Then the confusion is further compounded by the fact
24
that he quotes section 5 up here with the P and Q but above that he says
25
P&R and then-
26
Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you receive this letter.
27
A: I believe I did.
28
Q: And at the bottom of the letter it states-
Mr. Coughlin: And then it says: though I'm recommending this
case be resolved on an informal basis. So how can it be an informal
formal warning? You know? It's all very confusing.
4
5
6
7
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, let me finish my question please.

Judge McElroy: Why don't we just proceed by question and
answer.
Q: Though I am recommending this case be resolved on an
informal basis you have 10 working days after receipt of this informal
10
resolution letter to request in writing that your case be submitted to a
11
formal hearing. Did you ever request in writing that your case be
12
submitted to a formal hearing Mr. Coughlin?
13
14
Q: Did you ever question what was in this letter?
15
16
17
18
A: I can't remember. It's possible I might have spoken with the Mr.
Burns about it but that's quite a while ago.
Q: Okay, going back to Exhibit 2, Page 2 down about five sentences
19
it starts with: during the course of the academic investigation and
20
subsequent Nevada bar inquiry several students signed affidavits
21
indicating the they had, in fact, seen me turn in this paper? Was that a
22
true statement when you made it?
23
A: I believe so as if you'll notice in Mr. Burns letter of exhibit 53
24
and it says: I've spoken with classmates from the class in question.
25
That is classmates: And they do remember seeing you have the paper
26
in class that day.
27
Ms. Kagan: That wasn't the question Mr. Coughlin.
28
A: I'm sorry what was the question?
Q: The question was was the statement that several students
signed affidavits indicating that they had in fact seen me turn the
paper in. Was that true?
A: I'm not sure. I know of at least one student-
6
7
Q: Is that Amy Jones?
A: Yeah.
Q: In fact that's the only affidavit you ever submitted to the
10
Nevada State Bar, correct?
11
12
13
A: I'm not sure that would be something my attorney who is

handling that matter would know.
Q: So you don't know how many affidavits were actually turned
14
15
16
in?
A: I remember arranging for several students to have affidavits
17
signed, but I think there was something where a guy named Mike
18
Destefano, was going to sign one but I think there was something where
19
my attorney only felt it was necessary to get one signed.
20
Q: So only one student signed an affidavit, correct.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: I'm not sure but I think that's possible.

Q: So the statement that several students signed affidavits, that's
not in fact correct is it?
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?
28
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
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
informally telling you well we didn't find you guilty of the academic
wrongdoing, you know. I guess you can twist it around however you
10
want. And you have shown yourself to be extremely willing to twist
11
things around, so.
12
13
14
15
16
Q: Mr. Coughlin, you didn't provide exhibit 53 to the State Bar of

California did you?
A: I am not sure. I might have, or my attorney might have.
Q: In fact, you didn't provide any evidence of the emails between
17
you and Mr. Professor Tratos that is found in exhibit 5 to the State Bar
18
did you?
19
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance?
20
21
22
23
24
Q: You didn't provide any letters regarding the UNLV

investigation into either the computer or the academic dishonesty
investigation correct?
25
Mr. Coughlin: I didn't provide any letters?
26
Q: You didn't provide any letters or documents regarding that
27
28
investigation into the computer to the State Bar of California, did you?
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.
5
6
7
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.
10
11
12
13
Q: Mr. Coughlin, what was the basis for the academic dishonesty
investigation.
A: I don't think I'm capable of answering that.
14
Q: Why not?
15
A: That's their place to say what it's for. I would be guessing. I was
16
never given a very thorough outline of what they thought happened or
17
what they took issue with.
18
19
20
Q: What happened in that case?

Mr. Coughlin: Objection, vagueness.
21
22
Q: Did you take a cyber law class taught by Professor Mark Tratos
23
24
25
26
27
in the summer of 2001?

A: Yes.
Q: And as part of that class was there a paper that was due that
was worth forty percent of your grade?
28
A: I am not sure, there was conflicting reports over how much it
1
2
was worth.
Q: Was there a paper due in that class?
A: Yes.
5
6
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
10
correct?
11
12
13
14
15
A: I'm not sure about that I've heard conflicting reports on that
very.
Q: You heard conflicting reports whether or not Mr. Professor
Tratos wanted a disk?
16
A: Yes.
17
Q: What was your understanding? That he wanted a disk?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A: I remember in class that day that prior to the start of class

people were unsure of whether he wanted a disk or not. The very fact
that there was any uncertainty over whether he wanted a disk or not I
think would serve to alert you that it's possible and that you'd probably
be better off submitting the disk but it seemed like a good deal of the
class wasn't sure whether he wanted a disk or not or and if so why he
wanted a disk.
26
Q: Did you understand that he wanted a disk, Mr. Coughlin.
27
A: No, I didn't and the first I heard of it was before, actually I
28
seem to remember him indicating that he wanted a digital copy.
Whether that means a disk or not is up to debate but I remember him
saying that he wanted to post the papers on the class's website in which
case he would need a digital copy I assume.
4
5
6
7
Q: You didn't turn in a digital copy of your paper did you Mr.
Coughlin.
A: No.
Q: You didn't turn in a disc of your paper did you?
A: No, I wrote atop my hard copy that I wasn't turning and disk
10
because I would prefer not to have my work posted on the class's
11
website.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
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
security number atop of paper and a note saying I wasn't turning in the
the disk copy because I didn't wish to be put on the classes website.
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
25
on the podium that he taught at, but in terms of did I get explicit
26
permission not to turn in-
27
Q: A disk or digital format?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A: Well, I don't know that I understood that that was a directive

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
confusion among my peers in classes as to whether or not he in fact did
say yeah I want a disk or whether he said I wanted to put it on the class
website, or whether he wanted to put it on his laptop because he was
going to Hawaii and he wanted to grade them on the computer on the
plane.
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
15
supposing that by saying excusing its supposing that that was a
16
requirement which we haven't established that.
17
18
19
M: So the objection is a lack of foundation, its not leading, is it?

Mr. Coughlin: okay yeah I guess.
20
Judge McElroy: So what's the question?
21
Q: The question was did he before submitting his paper saying he's
22
23
24
25
26
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.
A: I didn't know whether or not you need permission to do that.
27
Q: The question was did you get permission?
28
Judge McElroy: You can say yes or no and explain.
1
2
3
4
5
6
A: Okay I didn't get permission and I wasn't aware that one

needed to get permission .
Q: At some point did you find out that Professor Tratos didn't have
a copy of your final paper?
A: No, I never found that out.
Q: Yet he did email you, turn to exhibit 5 page 8, he did email you:
Zach, please send me another copy of your paper many thanks Mark G.
Tratos correct?
10
A: Yeah and I think that's interesting to say another because
11
that implies he got one in the first place which I just don't understand
12
you know? And in fact, this happened with another student because it
13
was another student Jessica Wolfe in this course who he had said
14
something about he doesn't have her paper or he needs another copy of
15
her paper or something. But I always found it curious that he would
16
write I need another copy of your paper.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
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?
26
27
28
A: I couldn't find it. I had a computer die, my laptop died in the
meantime and I had also move residences and I just simply wasn't able
to find a copy of the final draft I turned in.
Q: At some point did you come to find out that Professor Tratos
couldn't issue you a grade because he didn't he couldn't review your
final draft.
7
8
9
10
11
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?
12
A: Well he did issue me a final grade, though, I passed that course.
13
Q: But you didn't pass until much later. I am talking about as of
14
September 2001 did you find out that Professor Tratos could not give
15
you a grade in the class because he did not have your final paper?
16
17
18
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.
19
Q: As of September?
20
A: I believe so, yeah, because he wrote me like on, the paper was
21
due July 15 or so and then he finally wrote me this we need another
22
copy of your paper like on September 7th and then I wrote him back
23
saying all I have is this rough draft you want me to turn in and he
24
writes me back saying yes turn it in and this is right around September
25
11th, 2001 so just to give you some context, but anyway so I turned that
26
in it's like I don't hear anything from him for awhile and the next
27
thing I hear which I believe was in October was we're starting this
28
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
look at that we're just going to start this full-scale academic fraud
investigation which by the way you need to report to any State Bar you
subsequently applied to and that was the next thing I heard from Mr.
Tratos after he'd told me yeah turn in that draft.
6
7
8
9
Q: Does exhibit five contain all the emails between yourself and
Professor Tratos regarding the paper?
A: I don't know.
10
Q: Well please review it.
11
A: Well even if I reviewed I wouldn't know because this is
12
13
something like what is this like six years ago now?

Q: Well let's talk about yeah well on September 7th, 2001 you
14
wrote Professor Tratos an email correct, that's exhibit five-page one is
15
that your email to Professor Tratos five page one yeah and in that
16
email you write that you can't find a copy of the paper because your
17
motherboard fried correct?
18
19
20
21
22
A: Yeah and because I moved residences.

Q: And that you only turned in a hard copy with your social
security number on it?
A: With a note requesting that the paper not be used for an online
23
posting and a reason being that I was taking the bar exam in a week
24
and that my paper had been really up to the quality I would want it to
25
be to be posted online.
26
Q: And then you ask let me know what I need to do?
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A: Yeah absolutely, you know, I was willing to do whatever to

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
for the kind words we have no papers that were turned in without a
student name on them at least of which we are aware. Perhaps you can
10
help us out by providing us with some more clues what was the topic?
11
What was the paper's title? What was the total number of pages?
12
Where did you do the paper? Do you have an e-copy? Is on your laptop?
13
Unfortunately I have no choice but to assign incomplete until we can
14
track it down. Mark Tratos. That's what it states
15
A: It appears that you just read those words correctly, yes.
16
Q: Did you read this email?
17
18
19
20
21
A: Yes.
Q: And what was your understanding of what Professor Tratos
was telling you in this email?
A: I was so confused because originally he goes we need another
22
copy of your paper and then now it's like well we didn't ever get that
23
paper that we referred to as another copy of which we need so I don't
24
understand-
25
26
27
28
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.
5
6
7
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
10
request whether or not the paper is worth fifteen percent or you can
11
take the class pass fail instead, correct?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A: Yeah and then because of yeah whatever.

Q: Professor Tratos writes back page 4, Zach thank you for the
quick reply sorry you were misinformed, the paper represents forty
percent of the grade we received everyone else's papers please try to
find it on your laptop.
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
percent. And there was two people teaching this class to you know they
28
were kind of rotating two adjuncts were rotating.
Q: And then on page 5 of exhibit 5 is that an email from you to
1
2
Professor Tratos of September 10, 2001.
A: Yeah.
4
5
6
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
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
15
16
17
Q: So did you believe that a digital copy was not necessary to turn
in.
A: Like I mentioned earlier there was confusion amongst my peers
18
in the class as to whether or not additional copy was was even being
19
required or requested or whether anybody's heard of that to begin with.
20
My belief was I'm not sure.
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.
Q: Well, certainly you have an opinion about it?
27
28
A: My opinion is that I don't know whose fault it is. I don't know
that you always have to find fault and everything make everything a
zero-sum game like some people like to do.
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?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Q: So, was it your opinion that it was Professor Tratos' fault for
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.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Transcript of 5/9/07:
1
2
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 9:30 this
morning when we were supposed to start trial and a few of them are
flying in from Las Vegas.
8
9
10
11
12
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.
13
Judge McElroy: Yes.
14
Ms. Kagan: Is it possible to either shorten the lunch or maybe
15
work you lunch today since we have such a short amount of time and I
16
have many witnesses?
17
18
Judge McElroy: We can work to 1:30.
19
Ms. Kagan: Okay, and then.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Maybe if you just go with the stuff you have that is
21
important and some substance to it not every little thing that you
22
found.
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: Okay, so anyway we'll go to 1:30 and then we'll

take an hour break.
Ms. Kagan: Or, maybe half an hour?
28
Ms. Kagan: thank you Your Honor okay and also one more point
of business. I spoke yesterday about Dr. Tucker. I thought he would be
able to testify tomorrow however he's advised that he is going to be in
the state of Washington tomorrow but would be available to testify by
phone if that's possible or if that's not possible Your Honor if we could
have maybe an hour scheduled at another time for him to testify about
his report.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
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
down here instead of having to make her drive to Reno for the
deposition.
Judge McElroy: okay well this is a little different because it's the
23
issues how much cross-examination do you want to do. You had an
24
interview with him for three hours. Have you looked at his report?
25
Mr. Coughlin: Yes.
26
Judge McElroy: ok do you have questions you want to ask?
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Judge McElroy: ok and the questions is do you want to do it over

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.
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
13
have him come back in person rather than just do it the way you want
14
to do it now. We've kind of been doing everything your way.
15
16
17
18
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.
19
Judge McElroy: What Mr. Coughlin has to understand is that
20
you'd have to come back for that, and I'll leave it up to him, but you
21
need to let us know by of late this afternoon.
22
23
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor ,the State Bar calls Officer Jeff George to
the stand.
24
Judge McElroy: Well this is a confidential proceeding. The
25
person sitting back there is someone from the State Bar, so I just want
26
you to know that, okay?
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: That person?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Can we discuss why they're back there?
3
4
5
Judge McElroy: Because he's from the State Bar. I presume that
he's watching the proceedings.
Mr. Coughlin: But he's not affiliated with the State Bar Court?
Judge McElroy: No, he's not affiliated with the State Bar court.
8
9
10
11
12
He's from the State Bar's office, the Office of Trial Counsel.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
Judge McElroy: So what I'm saying is that he can sit in the
healing.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Even though it is confidential?
14
Judge McElroy: Yes, because he's from that.
15
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: Is he working on this case?

Judge McElroy: No, he's not working on this case.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Then can I ask why he is here then?
19
Judge McElroy: it doesn't matter why he's here he works in the
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
State Bar.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so anybody who works in the State Bar...
Judge McElroy: Anyone who works in the chief trial counsel's
office can sit in, other witnesses can't or other people from the public,
it's not open to the public.
(The oath was administered to Officer Jeff George.)
By Ms. Kagan:
28
1
2
Ms. Kagan: Good morning Officer George, can you please state
your current employment.
A: I am currently employed by the State of California,
specifically the California highway patrol and I'm assigned to the
North Sacramento area office.
6
7
8
9
Ms. Kagan: How long have you been in that position I've been
employed by highway patrol for 16 and a half years and I've been
assigned to the north Sacramento station for 11 years.
10
Ms. Kagan: And as part of your job do you have to make arrests?
11
A: I do.
12
Ms. Kagan: Have you ever made any arrests for DUI and how
13
14
15
16
17
18
many arrest for DUI have you made Officer George?

A: 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?
19
A: I do.
20
Ms. Kagan: what kind of training do you have?
21
22
23
A: I originally received my training which was 52 hours in DUI

training while in the CHP Academy in 1990.
24
Ms. Kagan: do you have any additional training?
25
A: I do.
26
Ms. Kagan: what is that.
27
28
A: I was certified as a drug recognition evaluator in 1988. That
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.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ms. Kagan: what exactly were you taught?

A: basically, there's a 13 step process to go through evaluation
process we were taught each of the thirteen steps we were taught what
drugs have what symptoms you know symptomology to look for and
how to administer a given set of tests that check for those various
symptoms.
Ms. Kagan: do you recall arresting Mr. Coughlin, who is the
applicant in this matter, and how do you call that?
A: I do. Originally, when I was subpoenaed by this Court I
16
reviewed the arrest report and I remember distinctly making this
17
arrest and also when I saw him today I remember him also.
18
19
20
21
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?
A: Yes, The first page of the exhibit mark number 69 is the arrest
report commonly referred to as the booking sheet for the Sacramento
County Jail. On the next page would be the probable cause declaration
which is also a Sacramento County Jail form.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, could I make an objection?
26
Judge McElroy: sure it has to be a legal objection.
27
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, my objection would be relevancy.
28
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.
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
candid.
8
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so reporting something that didn't even need

to be reported does that show candor?
11
Judge McElroy: reporting something that didn't need to be
12
reported, that shows, that might show candor depends on what you say
13
about what you reported which is I'm assuming at this point, it might
14
be the State Bar is presenting evidence that what you reported wasn't
15
candid.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
A: Page three would be referred to as a CHP 202 which is driving
24
under the influence arrest investigation report this is a four-page
25
document that was prepared by me on January twenty-third of 2003.
26
Ms. Kagan: Was the arrest on January twenty thirty, 2003?
27
A: It was.
28
Ms. Kagan: Did you prepare exhibit 69 pages one through nine?
A: 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.
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: Did you prepare both of these reports?

A: 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
13
an arrest that led to the conviction of a reckless, so it is a conviction, so
14
that's another reason why your objection would be overruled.
15
16
17
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: It is an arrest that led to a conviction for a dry
reckless. Convictions are your duty, you have to report convictions.
Mr. Coughlin: Right, but does that mean you have to report the
20
charges that you were arrested for if those weren't didn't lead to
21
conviction.
22
23
24
25
26
27
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.
Judge McElroy: Is there any objection?
28
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, I would object on preserving an objection on
that the grounds that I don't believe this is something that can be
admitted given the application.
Judge McElroy: What is the legal objection?
Mr. Coughlin: Foundation, relevancy and hearsay, not properly
6
7
8
9
10
authenticated.
Judge McElroy: It is overruled, it's admitted.
Ms. Kagan: Officer, did you have a chance to review this report
before testifying today.
11
A: I have.
12
Ms. Kagan: And is it your opinion that the statements made in
13
your reports are an accurate representation of what happened during
14
the arrest of Mr. Coughlin.
15
16
A: They are.
17
Ms. Kagan: And, can you describe how the arrest took place?
18
A: This arrest basically stems from a traffic stop for a minor
19
infraction which was non-use of a safety restraint or seat belt. Mr.
20
Coughlin was the sole occupant in a vehicle he was observed while
21
stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Howe Avenue and
22
Cottage Way without his seat belt on. I made a traffic stop and
23
contacted him, he was identified by a Nevada driver's license while he
24
was stopped and during the conversation with Mr. Coughlin and I
25
noticed objective symptoms of intoxication and possible drug influence.
26
Ms. Kagan: What were those symptoms?
27
28
A: I noticed that his eyes were red and watery. I could smell a
strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana inside his vehicle, when I had
him to step out of his vehicle he was unsteady on his feet. I could smell
the odor of the freshly burnt marijuana about his person, his hair, his
clothing. When I got close to his breath smelled of marijuana his
pupils were dilated for the lighting conditions and slow to react to light
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.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Ms. Kagan: And, what happened?

A: 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
influence of at the time that you made the arrest?
A: My initial suspicion was cannabis or marijuana. He was
17
transported after being arrested down to the Sacramento County Jail
18
where a drug recognition evaluation was conducted in a controlled
19
environment at the completion of that I confirmed my suspicions that
20
he was under the influence of marijuana.
21
22
23
24
Ms. Kagan: When you asked Mr. Coughlin to perform those tests,
what tests did you ask him to perform?
A: A Romberg test.
25
Ms. Kagan: Can you explain what that is?
26
A: basically Mr. Coughlin was asked to stand with feet together
27
heels and toes touching his arms down at his side, to tip his head back
28
and to estimate thirty seconds. He was not able to do that. Well,
initially, he did tip his head back, he did keep his arms down at his
sides. He swayed with a variance of about three inches and during the
30 seconds, slowly, slowly lowered his head instead of keeping his head
back.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: So would you say that he passed that test or failed?
A: They were not really pass or fail. They're designed to check for
divided attention impairment. I would say that he did not perform that
test sufficiently.
Ms. Kagan: What other tests did you ask Mr. Coughlin to
perform?
A: A standing on one foot test. That test consists of having Mr.
13
Coughlin from a position that he was previously in, put his feet
14
together, heels and toes touching, and raise one foot approximately six
15
inches from the ground, keeping his toe pointed forward, arms down at
16
his sides. He was instructed to look at his foot and count aloud from
17
1001 to 1030.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ms. Kagan: Was he able to perform that?

A: Not sufficiently, no.
Ms. Kagan: Okay, were there any other tests that that you asked
him to perform?
A: Yes, he was given a finger count test and that test consists of
24
having one hand held up, palm open using the thumb as a pointer
25
touching it to the tips of the fingers starting with the pinky and
26
counting each finger aloud with thumb to pinky being one, the next
27
finger being two, three, four, then an open hand is five, then in a
28
reverse order open hand again is five, four, three, two, and one.
Ms. Kagan: Was he able to perform that test?
A: He did perform the test but not sufficiently. He counted from
3
4
5
one to five in both directions.

Ms. Kagan: Where there any other tests that he was given?
A: At that point, no.
Ms. Kagan: An you stated that there is another point where he
was actually taken somewhere and given different testing?
A: Yes, he was taking down to the Sacramento County main jail
10
where he was given some additional tests as part of the procedure for
11
the drug recognition evaluation.
12
13
Q: Who gave him those tests.
14
A: I did.
15
Q: And, what tests were those?
16
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, I don't see in the report where some of
17
18
19
20
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.
21
Q: Officer, what tests were given at that later time?
22
A: Again, he was given a Romberg test, he was given a walking
23
heel to toe test, a standing on one foot, and a finger to nose test
24
performance.
25
26
27
Q: And, how did he perform those tests according to your opinion.

A: He did not perform them as demonstrated or explained.
28
Q: In your opinion, have you made arrests before for driving
1
2
under the influence of marijuana?
A: I have.
4
5
6
Q: Is there anything specific that you look for with respect to

driving under the influence of marijuana?
A: Marijuana influence there is certain physical indicators. One
7
8
would be the dilated pupils, slow to respond to light stimulus and
increased marijuana influence can result in an increased heart rate
10
and increase blood pressure, body temperature could be increased.
11
There's a test that we do as part of the eye evaluation, it's called a lack
12
of convergence. When one smokes marijuana, you will tend to tend to
13
see that lack of convergence meaning that their eyes won't cross, one
14
eye will generally kick-out, and that was present in this case. One part
15
of the eye evaluation requires that you be taken into a dark room to
16
allow his eyes adjust to the darkness and under different stages a light
17
would be introduced at different strengths, you know a person who is
18
not under the influence, their eyes would react one way. His eyes
19
reacted in a way that was consistent with my training experience for
20
marijuana influence. If I can backtrack a little bit another thing that
21
we check would be we look in someone's mouth and pull the lower lip
22
down and look for debris in in their gums or teeth, stick out their
23
tongue look for indications of what I would consider recent marijuana
24
use and that would be indicated by the green that's in the marijuana
25
comes out and stains the tongue when people smoke it, so we checked
26
the tongue and in this case his tongue was coated with a great pastry
27
film.
28
1
2
3
Ms. Kagan: Can you estimate based on your experience whether

Mr. Coughlin had ingested marijuana within the past 24 hours?
A: Again, based on my training and what I've been trained to look
for marijuana impairment is generally up to four hours and beyond
that you wouldn't necessarily see the indicators that he displayed to me.
So, if I had to put a time estimate, I would say for sure within 24 hours
and more than likely within four hours of the time of the arrest.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Q: In your experience, are you aware of any instances where

somebody would maybe have smoked marijuana in the weeks preceding
an arrest and still shows signs that you were talking about that Mr.
Coughlin exhibited?
A: No. Let's say a daily user for marijuana, again, the signs of
14
impairment are only going to last about four hours from the time you
15
use, so if you had smoked a week prior he may come back positive for
16
THC or marijuana in his chemical tests but he would show no signs of
17
impairment.
18
Q: And in your opinion was Mr. Coughlin showing signs of
19
impairment at the time that you arrested him on January 23 rd, 2003?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?
28
1
2
3
4
5
Q: Fine thanks. Officer George like to ask you a few initial

questions. I assume you graduated from high school?
A: I did.
Q: Can you tell me what your GPA was in high school?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy and beyond the scope of direct.
Mr. Coughlin: Your honor I think it goes to...no?
9
10
Judge McElroy: No.
11
By Mr. Coughlin:
12
Q: All right, did you go to college Officer George?
13
A: I attended some college.
14
15
Q: Did you graduate from college?
16
A: I did not.
17
Q: Can you describe what and how much college, what sort of
18
19
20
21
22
classes you took?

Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy.
Mr. Coughlin: He's an expert, right? He is a drug recognition
expert who got out of high school, so...
23
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection.
24
Mr. Coughlin: Okay so we can't go into this experts...
25
26
27
28
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...
3
4
5
6
7
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
10
some four thousand others, where would that fall, where would that
11
compare to your peers as someone who has been a highway patrol
12
officer for 11 years, you said?
13
14
15
16
A: 16.
Q: Okay, where's that fall? Are you are you like a hall-of-fame or
are you like?
17
18
Judge McElroy: Sustained, and also your tone needs to be
19
20
21
22
23
24
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.
25
Mr. Coughlin: I'm arguing my objection.
26
Judge McElroy: Okay, and what I'm saying is the objection should
27
be a legal objection. Not a speaking objection.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
next question.
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: okay so is that is that high number of arrests for DUI? Where
11
do you compare to your peers?
12
this is already ruled on, Your Honor.
13
14
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy and
Judge McElroy: Your question is 3000 arrests, right?
15
Mr. Coughlin: Where does that fit in?
16
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Well he's certainly...okay, Your Honor. Officer
18
George you certainly went into a lot of detail and got to speak on pretty
19
much whatever it is Miss Kagan asked you about so we got a good idea
20
of you know your background as it relates to things Ms. Kagan, wants
21
us to know.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: What's the question?

Q: Well let's go to the arrest. Do you recall pulling me over for
having my seat belt off?
A: I do.
Q: Can you describe that? Were you driving your vehicle?
28
A: I might have to refer to the report, but I believe so.
Q: Okay, and was there someone with you?
3
4
A Yes.
Q: And who was that?
A: Officer Amy Escatel.
Q: Okay, but she didn't contribute to this report. What was her
8
9
10
role that day?

A: Cover.
11
Q: Okay, so she was covering?
12
A: Correct.
13
Q: And, for instance, if her opinions, if they differed from yours,
14
15
16
would they be included in this report?

A: No, she's not the arresting nor the evaluating officer.
17
Q: Okay, so she doesn't get to have an opinion?
18
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative and...
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it on relevancy grounds.

Q: Okay, can you tell me during this arrest, you pulled me over
have my seat belt off, you noticed as you were driving past me at a
stoplight you noticed I have my seat belt off, you might have been
driving and while that time if you were driving you notice somebody
who's at a stoplight, so you turn around and pull me over, do you recall
asking me to take a blood alcohol test?
A: At which point?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: That would be after you pulled me over while we're still on the
side of the road.
A: Again, you're gonna have to narrow it down. At which point?
Q: Any point?
A: Yes, after you were arrested, I explained to you the implied
consent law in the state of California which requires you to submit to a
blood, breath, or urine test.
9
10
11
12
13
Q: Prior to being arrested? Shortly after being pulled over.

A: Did I ask you to take....
Q: A blood-blow test?
A: No.
14
Q: You didn't?
15
A: No.
16
17
18
19
20
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?
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, is this a question?
22
Mr. Coughlin: I have not even finished my question.
23
24
25
26
Judge McElroy: Why don't you ask the question.

Q: My question is why don't you remember this when I have a
memory of having a long conversation about this?
27
Ms. Kagan: Objection.
28
Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't you ask a proper question?
Mr. Coughlin: So you never? Why didn't you? You're saying you
pulled someone over on suspicion of DUI and yet you didn't ask them to
take a blow test?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A: 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.
Ms. Kagan: Objection to the word pretext.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection, let's ask a legal
question.
Q: Okay, and he was answering.
Judge McElroy: No. What's your question?
15
Q: Well my question that he was answering was why didn't you do
16
a field sobriety blow test in the field? And you were going into why you
17
pulled me over and what you use that for.
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
test at the scene?
24
Q: Yeah.
25
A: Because at no time did I suspect that you were under the
26
27
28
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
wanted me to take a blow test saying you can do it or you cannot do it
but if you refuse to take this blow tests I'll just arrest you and then you
have to go to the station and take a urine or a blood?
3
4
5
6
7
A: No.
Q: Do you recall yourself and myself having a discussion about
the legal merits of asking someone to take a blow test when you have no
reason to believe they've had a drink that night?
A: No.
Q: You don't recall that either? It was a long conversation.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Judge McElroy: let him answer the question first.

A: Actually my recollection of the conversation with you was that
you felt that because you were a law student that I could not prove that
you were under the influence of anything and that you had not been
drinking other than one glass of wine approximately four hours prior
to being stopped.
Q: Were we discussing that in the context of you wanting me to
take a blow test?
19
A: No, that was...
20
Q: Why were we discussing that then?
21
22
Judge McElroy: You're gonna have to let him finish his answers.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I just wanted a yes or no, Your Honor.
24
Judge McElroy: I understand that but as yesterday when you
25
when you were asked questions and you wanted to explain I always
26
allowed you to explain a yes or no answer. He is allowed to explain a
27
yes or no answer.
28
A: Okay, now I'm confused what was the question?
Judge McElroy: Why don't you ask the question again?
Q: I asked why whether or not you you asked for a blow test and
then I asked you if you remember the legal kind of discussion we had
about why. I was asking you do you have a right to make me take a
blow test if I haven't demonstrated any signs of intoxication and you
don't smell alcohol and all you have is you pulled me over for a seat
belt and then you got mad that I would challenge your authority.
8
9
10
11
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
12
what he was saying about I didn't have you take one in the field
13
because you and I were having a conversation about the the merits of
14
doing so in the field and then I explained to you so...
15
Judge McElroy: Okay, ask the question. What is the question?
16
Q: Okay, did you have me take a blow test in the field?
17
18
19
20
A: No.
Q: Did we discuss taking a blow test in the field and did you get
upset once I...
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, compound.
22
Judge McElroy: Okay, it is sustained.
23
24
Q: Did you discuss taking a blow test in the field with me?
25
A: No.
26
Q: Okay, can you explain what you were just describing in
27
relation to that, or can we have it read back because he went in to
28
describing-
Judge McElroy: We don't have a read back. You have to remember
1
2
the question you asked.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
A: I believe what I stated-
Q: Something about being a law student, I remember that, okay, so
6
7
obviously we're talking, right? We were talking about law stuff and
you were saying: you're a law student you think you can tell me what
I-
10
A: No, that's not my recollection of the conversation.
11
Mr. Coughlin: I remember you were belligerent towards lawyers
12
13
14
15
when we were talking.

Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative and there's no question
pending.
16
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Let's ask a question, okay?
17
Q: Can you tell me why you knew I was in law school?
18
A: Because you made it very clear that you wanted me to know
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, you stated to me that you were in law school.

Q: Do you remember having a discussion were you were saying:
Wow, three years of law school down the drain, huh? No? You don't
remember that? Do you remember us having a discussion about law
school?
A: The discussion we had about law school and my recollection
26
was that you told me that you were in law school and that there was no
27
way you were going to get a DUI when you had not been drinking and I
28
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?
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: Now we're talking about breath tests?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin.
A: And, again, as I stated earlier, this all took place after you had
7
8
9
10
been taken into custody.

Q: In the car orA: Yes.
11
Q: Or at the station?
12
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what you need to do is ask
13
14
15
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
at no time did I suspect you were under the influence of alcohol and
that is what that test checks for.
20
Q: And I didn't refuse to take a breath test in the field?
21
A: You weren't offered one. There wasn't anything for you to
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
refuse.
Q: Right. Okay. And would that be noted in your report?
A: If you were given a breath test? Yes.
Q: And if I wasn't given a breath test? Wouldn't that be standard
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.
4
5
6
7
Q: Yeah, can you explain that to me? You're arresting someone for
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.
Mr. Coughlin: I am not sure how anyone could, but go ahead.
10
A: That field breath testing referring to is called a preliminary
11
alcohol screening device. It's a field sobriety test to further assist me in
12
determining whether or not you're under the influence of alcohol.
13
Again at no time during my contact with you did I suspect that you
14
were under the influence of alcohol. That is why you were not offered
15
that test in the field.
16
17
Q: Did 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
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Like taking a breath test would be standard?

A: Again, that is not a breath test, it's a preliminary alcohol
screening device.
Mr. Coughlin: WhateverA: It's a field sobriety testMr. Coughlin: Let's just say breath test, okay?
A: That would be an incorrect statement.
Q: Okay.
3
4
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
7
8
9
10
determiningQ: What would you like me to call it?

A: It's called a preliminary alcohol screening device.
11
Q: So, you take a test from a preliminary alcohol screening device?
12
A: That is a field sobriety tests to further assist me in
13
14
15
16
determining whether or not you're under the influence of alcohol?

Q: Does it give you a reading?
A: It does give a reading.
17
Q: Like a .08 or below or under that kind of thing?
18
A: We're talking again hypothetically because this doesn't none of
19
this applies in your case you were not offered that test because I at no
20
time did I suspect you were under the influence of alcohol.
21
22
23
24
Q: But at some point I took that test, right?

A: You did as part of the procedure for the drug evaluation, the
part of that procedure is to rule out alcohol as an intoxicant.
25
Q: But you wouldn't do that at the scene?
26
A: Correct.
27
28
Q: But you did it later?
A: Correct, because it's one of the process, it's part of the process for
the drug evaluation. I knew that you were going to come back zero. You
were not suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. That's part
of the procedure at that time to take that test.
Q: Did we discuss that in the field?
6
7
8
A: No.
Q: We didn't discuss that you knew I was going to come back zero
for alcohol?
10
A: No.
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection, asked and answered.
12
13
14
15
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
16
into this, because it's my belief that Officer George got upset with me
17
for taking issue with his wanting to do a breath test for me when I
18
knew that I-
19
20
21
22
23
24
Judge McElroy: You have explored that issue, okay, let's go on to

the next question.
Q: You say on the Romberg test that I went: 5, 4, 3, something
like that? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?
A: No, that would be the finger count test, not the Romberg test.
25
Q: Okay, you're the expert, right?
26
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative.
27
28
Q: Okay on the finger count test, can you describe again how how I
1
2
failed that test?
3
4
A: Yes, you counted one through five and then one through five
again when you're supposed to count five through one.
Q: And did you know that in your report?
6
7
A: I did.
Q: Because I don't see that. Can you explain that to me where that
9
10
is?
A: Sure, okay, page three of the arrest for driving under the
11
influence arrest report line 9 says finger count the subject counted
12
12345 12345 on all three repetitions.
13
14
Q: I'm sorry I'm having trouble finding this is on exhibit 69?
15
A: Correct?
16
Q: Okay, page three?
17
A: Page three of the CHP 202 driving under the influence arrest
18
19
20
21
report.
Q: Can you go by the bates stamps that are at the bottom? Oh,
okay, I see what you're saying.
22
Judge McElroy: What is your next question.
23
Q: Is that noted elsewhere in your report?
24
25
26
27
28
A: I'm sorry?
Q: I see that on the psycho-physical test there is a finger to nose.
A: You're looking at a different area of the report. That's under
the drug evaluation.
Q: Okay, because as I'm reading your report it kind of sounds like,
I'm wondering how I would be able to stand up? Because it sounds like
I failed every single thing you asked me to do.
4
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: What you need to do is just ask a question, okay?

Q: Well that's what I'm asking. How could someone who's you
know as you describe me in here possibly even stand up?
A: I'm not sure that-
Q: Able to function somewhat but failed every test you gave them
10
11
type thing?
A: Well, again the tests check for divided attention impairment,
12
they are not pass or fail. Divided attention impairment is the ability to
13
do more than one thing, one simple task.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q: But you were giving me a pass or fail, weren't you? You weren't
saying in shades of gray, you were saying he didn't perform it
satisfactory, did not perform as he was supposed. That was your
testimony again and again, it was either a pass/fail, it's not shade of
gray according to you?
A: No, actually my testimony was that you didn't perform them
21
sufficiently. That you did not perform them as demonstrated or
22
explained.
23
Q: Like pass or fail?
24
A: Well, again, they are not pass or fail tests.
25
26
27
28
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
didn't perform sufficiently.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: So it's once you don't do it gray, then it becomes pass
or fail?
Judge McElroy: His characterization is not pass fail, his
characterization is not performing sufficiently.
Mr. Coughlin: And if you don't perform sufficiently that's noted?
Judge McElroy: And it was noted, okay, so lets go to the next
question.
Mr. Coughlin: To what degree, though, is it noted? If you fell flat
on your face is that distinguished from swaying two inches?
16
Mr. Coughlin: That's pretty, right?
17
A: It would be.
18
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question?
19
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: Unless this report is just beyond reproach and

everything in it is considered sacrosanct, Your Honor, I don't want to
question that if that's the case, but if its the case that-
23
Judge McElroy: I am just asking you to ask the questions.
24
Mr. Coughlin: We are able to look at what he's doing here and see
25
if he's just an officer who is kind of a rogue prosecutor like in the Duke
26
case, or what?
27
28
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.
3
4
A: I did.
Q: And you noted it in your report?
A: I did.
Q: And how much then had I had to drink that night?
8
9
A: I believe you told me one glass of wine around 6pm.
10
Q: Okay. And have you ever smoked marijuana, Officer George?
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Couldn't that go into whether or not you could tell
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
let's move on, let's move on. The questions need to be relevant to this
hearing.
Q: At any time throughout the arrest, particularly when first
pulled over, would you say I was argumentative? How would you
describe our interaction on a human level.
A: Similar to your behavior today, I would consider you somewhat
argumentative, passive-aggressive maybe.
Q: Can you describe that?
A: Like, again, similar to your behavior today.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q: I mean in relation to that night and give examples of what you

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.
13
Q: Could you give me some situation?
14
A: Sure, like for example when I asked you where were are you
15
16
17
18
coming from tonight you said were you coming from.

Q: I did? Is that noted in your report?
A: No.
19
Q: But you remember that from how long ago?
20
A: I do.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Q: And you can't remember whether you were driving or not that
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.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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 likeJudge 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:
10
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Relevancy.
11
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know how in the hell a guy can get up there
and says an expert on something if he doesn't even have to answer
whether he's ever been around it.
16
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you need to ask a legal question.
17
Q: Have you ever been around someone-
18
Judge McElroy: He has made 3,000 arrests, okay?
19
20
Q: Have you ever been around freshly burnt marijuana?
21
A: Yes.
22
Q: Can you describe that? When was that? A part of the training
23
24
25
26
27
at your DRE class?

A: Yes.
Q: There was freshly burnt marijuana?
A: Yes.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q: And was it being burned? How was it being burned? Was

somebody smoking it?
A: No.
Q: How was it, how were they getting, they were just putting a
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 toJudge 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.
19
Judge McElroy: What is the next question.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Why are we even getting into this? And, if if there's
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
27
Judge McElroy: Do you have a question to ask this officer?
28
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah.
Judge McElroy: Okay, what is the question?
Q: Have you ever smelled freshly burnt marijuana?
3
4
5
Judge McElroy: That has been asked and answered. Next

question.
Ms. Kagan: Asked and answered.
Q: How do you know you're smelling freshly burnt marijuana?
A: Because it has a different smell then then non burnt
marijuana.
10
Q: Is that like a smoky smell?
11
12
A: Again it's hard to describe. Its a clearly recognizable smell.
13
Q: Like this standard for obscenity, kind of?
14
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: I am not allowing any more questions in this area

you need to move on to another area.
Q: Officer George, did we discuss any physical problems that I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
Lortab.
Q: Okay, now generally do you have people with chronic back and
26
neck pain stand back and look at the sky and have them count to thirty,
27
is that pretty normal for you?
28
A: Well, first off, I believe my answer was that you said you had
chronic back pain so I don't think we've established that you had neck
pain also, and yes, that is a standard field sobriety test that is given.
5
6
7
Q: Would you give that to someone who had one of those halos on
their head like one of those-
Judge McElroy: Sustained, next question.
10
11
12
Q: Would you give someone who had a neck brace on?

13
14
Q: Would you give it to someone-
15
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna not allow any more questions in this
16
17
18
19
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?
20
21
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule it.
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: Is the question whether there is a quota or a performance

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?
28
A: I can't answer for my sergeant. I believe the question was is
there a quota? No, there is not. They actually let us arrest as many
people as we want to.
4
5
6
Q: Okay, and some people arrest more?

A: Some people arrest more and some people arrest less.
Q: Do you consider yourself someone who arrests more or less?
10
11
Q: Are you a high performer?
12
13
14
Q: Do you give more arrests than your average officer for DUI?
15
16
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: How can that not be relevant?
19
20
21
22
23

Mr. Coughlin: Do you give more or less? What if he's given more
DUI arrest than any other officer in the history of California.
Judge McElroy: I am going to take a brief recess. Can you? We
24
are going to take a brief recess at this point and I will talk to you. You
25
can step outside, yes.
26
27
28
Court Personnel: Do you want to go off the record, Your Honor?

Judge McElroy: Yes.
Judge McElroy: Okay, we're back on the record.
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
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
19
33 out of 30, so what is a passing score, 32 out of 30?
20
A: No, again, I'm looking for totality of the situation.
21
Q: But we're not talking about that we're talking about this one
22
23
24
part.
A: No, actually we are.
25
Q: I don't want to hear about your totality, okay.
26
Ms. Kagan: Objection, allow the witness to answer the question.
27
Judge McElroy: Allow the witness to answer the question.
28
Mr. Coughlin: I want an answer that is a yes or no, or an answer
1
2
that is tailored to this.
Judge McElroy: I understand that but remember yesterday you
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?
7
8
A: Okay, I'm not sure, number one, which-
Q: In a number of seconds as in is 32 passing? Something like
10
that.
11
12
A: Okay you're not referring to the second test, which would be the
walk and turn test you're, referring to still the Romberg test?
13
Q: Yes.
14
15
A: And you're asking me what would be passing?
16
Q: Yes.
17
A: They're not pass or fail tests, I can't give you an answer for
18
19
20
21
22
23
that.
Q: Okay, well what would not qualify as having an altered sense
of time, because that's that's the buzz words you're using in this
particular- I know you use a lot of buzz words, what will work, what
won't work, stuff like that.
24
Judge McElroy: Will you just a question, not a narrative?
25
Q: What would not be an altered sense of time? If 33 is an altered
26
27
28
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.
Q: That's the question, Officer George.
A: Well, again, what would not be an altered sense of time would
be 30 seconds, however, that's not what this test is based on. It's not
based solely on the seconds, which is what you seem to be hung up on.
5
6
Q: Well there's not more, there's not much to go on there.
Judge McElroy: What is the next question?
Q: Well I didn't understand his answer, because, okay, obviously
9
10
11
12
13
30.00 is not altered, but in terms ofMs. Kagan: Objection.

Mr. Coughlin: In terms of looking at human beings what would be
14
something where someone would perform this test and you would not
15
write: he had an altered sense of timing or I assumed you would write:
16
his timing was not altered?
17
18
Judge McElroy: Let's ask a question, no narrative, okay, otherwise
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I'm not going to allow you to cross-examine anymore.

A: I have had cases where the person did not sway and their time
estimation was right on 30 seconds. It's a totality of the circumstances,
again, these are not pass fail tests.
Q: Great, can you be more specific because did anybody can say
these are totality-of-the-circumstancesMs. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, argumentative andJudge McElroy: Sustained let's go to the next question.
28
Q: If I had gotten 31 seconds, what would that have gotten charted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
as?
Judge McElroy: I am gonna overrule it. You want to ask the 31
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.
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
16
any more questions if you cannot act like a lawyer and ask the question,
17
a proper question.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
Judge McElroy: What's the next question?
Q: But in this report, he put it into the context of a sentence that
said he had an altered sense of timing estimating blah, blah, blah, so
you're not just putting numbers in there you're you're putting an
altered sense of timing so what would 31 and a half get me?
3
4
5
6
7
A: It would get you 31 and a half seconds.

Q: With that would you say he had an altered sense of timing
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
the test works. Whether or not your time estimation is off, the test
itself checks for divided attention impairment which is standing with
10
your head back and estimating 30 seconds. What I'm looking for is
11
whether or not you're-
12
Q: I am not asking for your description-
13
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
need to wrap up your cross-examination.
Q: Have you received any commendations as an officer medals,
commendations, awards?
A: Yes.
24
Q: Can you describe those?
25
A: Well, let's see, I received a master award for shooting I've been
26
recognized by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers five times for my
27
expertise and taking drug and alcohol impaired drivers off the road.
28
Q: That's Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?
A: Correct.
Q: Is that like Officer of the Year?
A: No, it's actually not Officer of the Year, that would be separate
and I have not received Officer of the Year, if that is what you're asking
me.
6
7
8
9
10
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.
11
Q: Five times, awarded by MADD, for your work in DUI's?
12
A: Correct.
13
14
Q: So, it kind of sounds like you're a superstar DUI cop?
15
16
Judge McElroy: Argumentative and it is sustained.
17
Q: So, you have been recognized five times by MADD, is that
18
typical of officers? Or it that because you you've had a exemplary
19
record in giving out DUI's at a great rate?
20
21
22
23
Q: Is that typical for an officer to get recognized by MADD five
24
25
26
27
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.
28
Q: So, the don't just recognize one a year?
A: No, for example this year there are 10 people from my station
3
4
5
that are getting an award.

Q: For this particular award or just any award?
A: This particular award.
Q: This Mothers Against Drunk Driving award?
A: Correct.
9
10
11
Q: And how many people are in your station that are eligible for
the award?
12
13
14
Q: Would you consider yourself to be someone who is a high-
15
16
17
performing officer when it comes to giving out DUI's?

18
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna overrule it.
19
A: Again, it's a matter of perception. No, I just work hard and do
20
21
22
23
24
25
the job that they pay me to do.

Judge McElroy: So what's the next question?
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?
26
Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation.
27
28
Q: Can you go on about any awards you might have received?
A: I received five awards for vehicle theft recovery, numerous
written accommodations for anything from rescuing a guy that crashed
over a cliff, to-
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q: How about we just talk about awards related to DUI's in some

whatever tenuous way?
A: We've already covered that.
Q: Just the MADD, the five MADD recognitions in your 16 years.
Wasn't there something about 11 years?
10
11
Q: You have been an officer for 16 years, what have you been
12
13
14
15
something for 11 years?

A: I've been assigned to my current duties location for the last 11
years?
16
Q: And that's as a Northern?
17
A: I work for the my current assignment in North Sacramento
18
CHP Office.
19
Q: Now I notice when you say I swayed, and this is on your report
20
bates stamp page 8, swayed in all directions approximately two inches
21
from center, if someone who is 5 feet tall sways two inches is that
22
different from someone who's six-foot-four swaying two inches?
23
24
A: No, two inches is still two inches?
25
Q: Oh, is it?
26
27
Judge McElroy: Next question, argumentative.
28
Q: Because, I don't think it is.
Judge McElroy: Argumentative, next question.
3
4
5
6
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?
Q: And if the percentage is higher doesn't that mean they are
10
11
12
swaying more so for their body height?

Judge McElroy: Sustained, what's the next question?
13
Mr. Coughlin: That something might learn in college.
14
15
Q: How do you differentiate between someone who is seven feet
16
17
18
tall swaying and someone who is five feet tall swaying?

19
20
Q: What would be an acceptable distance for someone to sway,
21
what would be, someone who is clearly not intoxicated, how would they
22
sway?
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
Q: So, in a circular way you've told me what would be good is to do
3
4
5
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
something that would fit in the range of this person is not getting
arrested for DUI imperfect?
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,
totalityJudge McElroy: And that's the way it is, what's the next question?
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Because, he can't say.
26
Judge McElroy: You can't accept it.
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: You can't say because your whole thing is just
baloney.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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?
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
10
11
12
13
14
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?
15
A: I can give you a brief description that may or may not make
16
sense to you. Have you ever seen someone walk with flippers on, like
17
they're gonna walk out and go diving?
18
Q: Yeah.
19
A: Like that.
20
21
22
Q: But if someone who doesn't have flippers on they could still

walk like that?
23
A: Sure.
24
Q: Floppy feet?
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: What's the next question.

Q: Is that kind of a personality type thing, you think? Walking
with floppy feet?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance.
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him answer.
3
4
5
Q: Like dressing with a baseball cap or wearing a gold chain or

something?
Q: Objection, relevancy.
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and ask this one more
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
question.
A: Are you asking me if that's a personality trait?
Q: Yeah.
A: I don't know you well enough to form that opinion, so I couldn't
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
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?
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Oh, strike that.
27
Judge McElroy: Go ahead.
28
A: It can be.
Q: But it can also not be?
A: Again, it's based on the totality of the circumstances. It can be
3
4
5
and it could not be.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
A: That's not solely what I'm lookin' for.
Q: Okay, well, let's speed this up. Let's boil this down for me what
you are looking for. What's your top 5 hit list of why you think I was
impaired. Let's give us your five best shots.
10
11
12
13
14
A: I can sum it up in one shot.

Q: Not totality-of-the-circumstances. Let's get some real things
that you have to stand behind, Officer George.
Judge McElroy: Okay, Mr. Coughlin, please, behave. The question
15
is five indicators of why he felt he was under the influence of
16
marijuana that night.
17
A: Because based on my training experience.
18
Q: Five most important, I'm sorry.
19
20
Judge McElroy: Will you please let him explain it?
21
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor.
22
A: Your physical indicators, the psycho-physical tests.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Can we have specific indicators, not broad index of

a book type things.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Coughlin, pretty soon I'm
gonna have you leave this courtroom if you don't behave. So, if you
could give the court what made you think that he was under the
influence of marijuana that night when you arrested him.
A: The physical indicators, which would be red and watery eyes,
dilated pupils that were slow to react to light stimulus, green coating
on the tongue, odor of freshly burnt marijuana about your person and
breath, your performance on the field sobriety tests.
7
8
9
Q: That's five.
A: That's what you asked for, right?
10
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah.
11
A: Okay.
12
13
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question about?

Mr. Coughlin: I want to talk about these, okay, I asked that
15
question for a reason. The first one, I believe, was he said my physical
16
characteristics?
17
A: Physical indicators.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Red watery eyes.
19
20
21
A: That was one.

Q: Can someone have read or watery eyes, say someone who works
22
at a law firm as a litigation associate first year he's looking at a
23
computer for 10 hours a day, would that give you red or watery eyes?
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: objection, relevance.

Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him go with that
question, go ahead.
A: It could. It can also be an indication of marijuana use.
1
2
3
4
5
Q: Okay but there's a lot, I mean, how many allergies can give you
red or watery eyes?
Judge McElroy: What is the next question.
Q: So, point one, is something that could be a lot of things, right?
Judge McElroy: Okay, so at this point, I am not going to continue.
Mr. Coughlin: One more question, please?
Judge McElroy: One more question that's it.
9
10
11
Q: Dilated eyes. Does taking back medication, would that dilate

your eyes?
12
A: No.
13
Q: It doesn't? Opiates don't dilate your eyes? And your are a drug
14
15
16
17
18
recognition expert? Okay, I rest. Great.

Ms. Kagan: Objection, allow the witness to answer the question,
Your Honor.
Mr. Coughlin: Please do, please do, I'd love to hear this.
19
A: Actually that's a narcotic which would constrict your eyes.
20
Judge McElroy: Next question.
21
22
23
24
25
Q: Right, so narcotics don't ever dilate your eyes?

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?
26
A: Correct.
27
Q: Okay so point one was we had red watery eyes, point two was
28
you had dilated eyes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
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?
A: Refresh me.
Q: I'm asking you.
Judge McElroy: He doesn't, he needs to be refreshed.
Mr. Coughlin: Well they were his is his arrest report.
10
11
12
13
Judge McElroy: I'm not gonna, you're not asking a proper

question at this point.
Q: Okay, so point three, I'm gonna say it was the floppy feet thing,
14
I don't know. I'm gonna say was the floppy feet thing, which could be
15
kinda like a personality thing maybe one of these hip hop people who
16
walk around with the floppy feet and their attitude like that.
17
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Is counsel testifying.
18
19
20
21
22
Q: Are all five of these things you said, could they all be described
by things other than intoxication? Could they be caused by things
intoxication?
23
A: Well, I'm sure from sittin' where you're sittin', yes.
24
Q: But not from where you are sitting? Red eyes can't be caused
25
26
27
28
by allergies? Other drugs can't dilate pupils?

A: Red eyes could be caused by a number of things.
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: You are being argumentative, let him explain his
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.
7
8
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
15
16
Judge McElroy: No, we don't need an explanation. She can put on

her case as she wishes. Okay, you may step down, thank you.
17
Ms. Kagan: I just want to check on my witness.
18
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, is there a transcript being made?
19
Judge McElroy: No, you're gonna have to order a transcript.
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but it is being recorded?
22
Judge McElroy: You are going to have to order the disk.
23
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, the state calls Mark Tratos.
24
25
26
(The oath was administered to Mark Tratos.)

By Ms. Kagan:
27
Q: Good afternoon Professor Tratos?
28
A: You can call me Mark.
Q: Are you employed?
A: I am.
3
4
5
6
Q: Where are you employed?

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.
9
10
11
Q: Where did you work before.

A: I had my own firm, Quirk and Tratos, which was an
12
intellectual property and entertainment boutique.
13
Q: And how long did you have that firm?
14
A: About 22 years.
15
16
Q: Are you a licensed lawyer in California?
17
A: California and Nevada.
18
Q: Where do you primarily practice?
19
A: Most of my time is spent in Nevada. I have had a lot of work in
20
21
22
23
24
California over the years but it is small fraction of what I doing.

Q: Do you have a specialty?
A: I do I'm an intellectual property and entertainment lawyer
with a special emphasis on internet law.
25
Q: Have you ever taught any classes in internet law?
26
A: Yes, I've been a regular faculty, adjunct faculty member for
27
UNLV's Boyd School of Law, where I teach cyberlaw, rights of
28
publicity, privacy, defamation law, and entertainment law.
Q: And how long have you been teaching those courses for UNLV.
A: I believe since the second year that UNLV was open I began
teaching there. I've also taught at Arizona State and I'm on the Boards
of Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland and Southwestern in Los
aAngeles and I am the vice chairman of the board of visitors for the
National Judicial College.
7
8
9
Q: You said that you had been teaching at UNLV law school since
the second year it opened?
10
A: I believe that's correct.
11
Q: And do you have an approximate date for that?
12
A: Again, I think we are in our seventh year, so six years ago,
13
14
15
16
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?
17
A: I believe he was. He was one of my students.
18
Q: And do you recall any contact with Mr. Coughlin regarding
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that course.
A: Yes, he was a bright student in the classroom. I think that we
had a difficulty I think at the end of the class with a missing paper.
Q: I'd like to discuss the missing paper. Can you explain to me
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
26
the class grade and it was part of the way that we got people to
27
understand cyber law or internet law by actually having them
28
research in an area and write a paper on an approved topic.
Q: Do you recall when that paper was due for that class?
A: It was at the end of the semester, I think it was turned in at the
3
4
5
6
end of the semester. It was sometime in the July-August time frame.

Q: Were there any requirements for turning in the paper?
A: Yeah, I required that each of the students turn in the paper
both in a written printed form of physical paper and submitted
electronically as well.
9
10
11
Q: Did you explain to the class why you needed an electronic

form?
Q: Not necessarily, it was cyber law class, so expecting it to be
12
turned in in an electronic form would seem to make sense, but it was
13
also for my convenience so I could read it on my computer.
14
15
16
17
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
18
series of discussions about that fact that I had neither the paper copy
19
nor the electronic copy and I couldn't give him a grade until I had the
20
the copy so I could grade it.
21
22
23
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
24
seven page paper from him which I don't think he represented as being
25
his original paper. I think it was something that he was able to
26
retrieve some time later on. He indicated to me that he had a problem
27
with his computer, his computer crashed or something, and he was
28
unable to retrieve the paper.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: But did you ever have his the final paper that he turned in, not
the draft, in your possession?
A: Not that I am aware of, ever.
Q: When did you realize that you didn't have that paper?
A: I think I realized that I didn't have it when I was grading the
remainder of the papers. I had graded papers, it was not one of the
papers in my paper pile, therefore, I gave him an incomplete. I think
that's how it came up.
10
11
12
13
14
15
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.
Q: Professor Tratos, I'd like you to turn to Exhibit Five in the
binder. Do you recognize Exhibit Five?
16
A: Well, I recognize my scribbles on the bottom of the page.
17
Q: That is your handwriting on Exhibit Five?
18
A: Yeah, that is my handwriting.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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
copy of your paper?
Q: Yes. And how do you recognize this?
A: Because I remember doing that, I remember asking for another
1
2
copy of the paper to be sent.
3
4
Q: Is this the first contact that you had with Mr. Coughlin
regarding the paper that you recall?
5
6
7
8
A: I don't know if it was the first but it was very early on in it

because he believed he had sent it but we could not locate it so we asked
him to send us another copy.
Q: Is there a reason that you use the word another copy in that
9
10
email?
A: Well, sure he indicated to us he had prepared it. We take our
11
12
student's representations at face value. I had no reason to doubt it, so I
13
assumed he had another copy and asked if he could send me another
14
one.
15
16
17
18
Q: Now, Professor, at some point did you alert the law school Dean
about Mr. Coughlin's behavior in this, regarding the paper?
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I'm sorry-
19
Judge McElroy: What is your legal objection?
20
Mr. Coughlin: Could I use the restroom?
21
Judge McElroy: Yes.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry Your Honor I'm having some bladder
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
did you refer this matter with Mr. Coughlin to the Dean of the law
school?
4
5
6
A: After some weeks, I did, yes.

Q: And what was the basis for that?
A: I was concerned about the matter escalating. Mr. Coughlin had
indicated he couldn't get the paper back to me because of some injury to
his laptop, so I offered to pay for having his hard. As an internet and
10
computer firm we had access to people who could do those kind of
11
things and so we offered to help him retrieve the paper if that would
12
help. Somehow the communications got a little more agitated, and I
13
thought it was something that probably I needed some guidance from
14
the Dean on as to how I should handle it so I contacted the Dean to try
15
to get a handle on it.
16
17
18
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
19
that he was not getting a grade because I was not giving him a grade,
20
and I appreciated his concern about that, at the same time I needed to
21
have the paper so that I can grade it. Because he hadn't sent me an
22
electronic version and I didn't have a paper version of the paper I had
23
asked him to send me another copy electronically so that I could at
24
least examine it. When he was unable to produce that then it made me
25
concerned as to whether or not the paper had in fact existed and as we,
26
you know went back and forth in this exchange of emails I simply
27
reminded him that in the class we requested that he send both with
28
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,
therefore we needed it. Essentially, when the hard drive problem
apparently materialized that was a problem with his computer so we
couldn't get it, it put me in an awkward spot of not knowing what to do
for him and that's why I think he got frustrated and I certainly was
frustrated.
7
8
9
Q: Can you turn to page 9 of the exhibits.

A: Okay.
10
Q: Bates stamp page 9 through 15 of Exhibit Five.
11
A: Okay, page nine?
12
Q: Yes.
13
14
A: Yes, I did.
15
Q: And, how did you recognize that?
16
A: In September, Zach sent me an email and attached a copy of a
17
document which he thought was a very rough draft, expressed it as a
18
very rough draft of the article that he said he had drafted or written
19
and that's what I see in this exhibit and I guess it is page 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
20
and going to page 15.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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.
1
2
3
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,
let's get pissy over the meaning of revision I thought was probably
not the kind of scholarly-
6
7
8
9
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.

Judge McElroy: I'm going to allow one or two questions in the
area. So, its overruled.
10
Ms. Kagan: You can finish answering the question.
11
A: I assumed it was a misguided effort to be humorous.
12
13
14
15
Q: I would like you turn to page 21, bate stamp page 21 of the
exhibit, Professor. Do you recognize this page?
A: I don't really recall this, this was apparently something it was
16
actually sent to my assistant Catherine Luce at the time. I don't have a
17
good recollection of this one I do recall he did send me something
18
directly , and maybe it's the next page. Yeah, I recognize the next page.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q: Was this something that either you or your assistant

forwarded to the Dean of the law school?
A: I think, yeah.
Q: And, can you explain why this email was forwarded?
A: Zach's communication with me was very inconsistent. It tended
25
to be extreme highs extreme lows in terms of the level of emotional
26
response.
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
A: He was very apologetic in some of these correspondence and not

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.
A: The were the most unusual communications I received from
10
any law student or any student at any institution that I taught at ever.
11
They were just different.
12
13
Q: Can you describe what you mean by that?
14
15
16
A: Zach's a very articulate but somewhat erratic and troubling, I
17
mean that that they were just the kind of communication that I don't
18
think any professor would be comfortable in getting?
19
20
21
Q: Did they caused you any concern?

A: Well, they only caused me concern in that he was conducting
22
himself in a fashion that I thought was of concern, not that I was
23
personally feeling bad or threatened or anything of that nature, just
24
that the conduct was unusual.
25
26
27
28
Q: Now you testified earlier that you referred this matter to the
Dean of the law school, correct?
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
directions on how I can best respond, which was the administration.
Q: Are you aware that the administration opened up an academic
dishonesty investigation against Mr. Coughlin related to the emails or
10
11
12
13
14
15
the class that he attended with you?

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
23
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
24
academic life, when we invest a great deal of time, energy, or effort on a
25
paper we keep a copy of it. We keep materials because it's something
26
that might be useful to us later on. So, it was standard practice to, if,
27
even if, you know copy is damaged or somebody spills coffee on it or
28
something and you want to be able to read a nice legible one, it's not
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.
5
6
7
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
10
11
12
13
14
request for this digital copy to the class?

A: I believe it was both in the syllabus, class syllabus and orally
to the class.
Q: Okay, because we do have a copy of the class syllabus, don't we?
15
A: I think so, I don't know.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Because I didn't seen it in there.
17
Ms. Kagan: Objection, vague.
18
19
Judge McElroy: Let's proceed by question.
20
Q: Would it surprise you to know that's not in the syllabus?
21
A: It wouldn't surprise me because I recall clearly standing in
22
front of the classroom saying let's make sure that you get me an
23
electronic version as well so that I can take it with my computer if I go
24
on vacation.
25
26
27
28
Q: Okay, so when you were making the syllabus, did you know
that you were going on vacation?
A: I don't know that I did or didn't.
1
2
3
4
5
Q: So you maybe didn't put the thing about the digital because you
didn't know your were going on vacation?
A: That is possible, yes.
Q: Okay, but just earlier you said it was in the syllabus?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I am going to overrule the objection let him
8
9
10
11
12
13
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
14
class would know that you wanted this digital copy is that you
15
expressed it in class.
16
17
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and overrule the objection,
18
19
20
21
22
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
23
turned in, I'm mentioning it several times during each of the class
24
sessions to remind people because it's a fine deadline and I have a
25
limited amount of time to grade, and so it comes up a couple times a
26
week in class.
27
28
Q: What is it?
A: Reminders about the paper come up several times.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q: I asked you about the digital copy and when you announced the
digital copies is requirementMs. Kagan: Objection, argumentative.
Judge McElroy: Why don't I overrule the objection and go ahead
and let you answer?
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.
10
Q: Said what?
11
A: Said, remember your papers are due. Remember I need both a
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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.
Okay, so at what point in this semester, so several times throughout the
semester, at what point did you schedule your vacation which would
have necessitated this hard copy? Was this earlier on in the semester?
21
22
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him ask this
23
24
25
26
27
28
question because itsA: Zach, theMr. Coughlin: Yes, Mark.

A: The norm was to have had the paper copy, not the digital copy.
What was unusual here was that I was asking also for the digital copy-
Mr. Coughlin: So it was unusual, okay.
A: I was asking for both-
3
4
5
Q: At what point in the semester did you decide you're going on

vacation and thus,
A: I don't recall-
Q: Because that was the whole point, right, as you said, in asking
8
9
10
11
12
13
for a digital copy, right?

A: That's one of the reasonsQ: 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-
14
Judge McElroy: Wait, let's ask a question, no narrative.
15
Q: So, at what point did you decide you were going on vacation?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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,
what's the next question?
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.
Q: Do you recall where you were going to vacation?
26
A: I was going to California. San Diego.
27
Q: To California? And did you bring a laptop with student's
28
papers loaded onto it for grading?
A: I did.
Q: You did. So, it was at some point in the semester that you knew,
3
4
5
okay I'm going to go to- and how long did you go to California for?
A: I think I was there for five days.
Q: And this would have been around when?
A: Some time in September-October of 2001.
Q: Okay, so class ended in July and you're going to bring your- and
9
10
11
grades are due on September 5th, right? That means the grades areMs. Kagan: Objection, that is not in evidence.
12
Judge McElroy: Okay, here is-
13
Mr. Coughlin: That can be judicially noticed, Your Honor.
14
Judge McElroy: No, it's not going to be judicially noticed.
15
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: If there's a long-standing rule that grades are

needing to be due 45 days after class ends.
18
Judge McElroy: Judicially noticed is completely different, okay?
19
Mr. Coughlin: I didn't go to a top tier law school. I went to UNLV,
20
21
22
23
24
okay?
Mr. Tratos: Its a top 100 law school.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, here's the problem, the State Bar is
25
asserting that you misrepresented the outcome of the academic
26
dishonesty investigation and the evidence supporting that position. At
27
this point it's not really relevant in terms of you know where he spent
28
his vacation and what he spent his vacation, it's whether you
misrepresented the outcome, so I would suggest that you focus on the
outcome.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I'm just trying to understand, Your Honor,
why Mr. Tratos would be loading papers onto a, to grade 5 days after
grades were supposed to be due.
6
7
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: That is not the issue. So, its irrelevant.

Mr. Coughlin: It goes to whether he even knows where anything
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
11
you represented to the California State Bar regarding the outcome of
12
all this.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Right, and a central issue in this is whether he
14
announced to the class a digital copy was due. Somehow we made that a
15
central issue, like that is a big deal.
16
17
18
Judge McElroy: That this is not the issue, okay?

Q: So at some point in the semester, you decided I'm going to- this
19
is the semester that ended July 15-
20
Judge McElroy: The point is?
21
Q: I'm asking, I want to ask the question-
22
23
24
Judge McElroy: What is the question?

Q: At some point in the semester that end of July 15, this is got to
25
be a couple months beforehand, right? You said, you know what? I'm
26
going to sometime in September-October I'm gonna go to San Diego so I
27
need to load these papers on my laptop, so I'm going to announce this to
28
the class sometime in like what? Like July, that you might go on a trip
in September?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy
5
6
Q: I am asking you if that's what happened?
A: Its not, Zach
Q: Okay, please explain to me, Mark.
9
10
11
12
13
14
A: The class is going on, as the papers get near I remind the class
several times that the papers are due. It's gonna be forty percent of the
grades. I want them in both paper form and in digital form. The
interesting thing here is, the paper form was never turned in, and that's
the point we were trying to make.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, the paper form was turned
15
16
in.
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: No, I am sorry, go ahead, finish answering the
19
20
21
question.
Judge McElroy: Object to someone's answer.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I'll ask the question again.
23
Judge McElroy: I don't want to hear that. He was explaining his
24
answer. I think you're you really don't understand what the point of
25
this hearing is and I think you're not getting it. The point is is that you
26
misr- it is alleged that you misrepresented in the application that it
27
was completely resolved in your favor. You need to focus on that issue
28
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?
4
5
A: I probably did.
Q: You don't remember, though? A gentleman named Don who was
a summer associate for you was in the cyber law class?
A: Don Prunty is still working for me.
Q: He is still with you? And was he in that class?
10
11
A: I believe he was.
12
13
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him explore.
14
Q: He got an A in that class, didn't he?
15
16
A: He was one of several people who did.
17
Q: There was only a couple people that got an A, right?
18
A: I believe there were several.
19
Q: How many is several?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Q: His employee was one of a couple people who got an A in this

class.
Judge McElroy: Remember the issues is your misrepresentation
about the outcome.
28
Mr. Coughlin: Right, well but this goes this goes to why my name
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-
5
6
7
8
9
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.
Judge McElroy: It doesn't make
any difference whether the paper was turned in.
10
Mr. Coughlin: It doesn't?
11
Judge McElroy: Not in terms of this hearing.
12
Mr. Coughlin: What does? So it doesn't matter whether- let's say I
13
did turn this paper and let's just let's just go ahead and assume that-
14
that doesn't matter? That doesn't? Is that what you are saying?
15
16
17
18
19
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?
20
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, what's your next question?
21
Mr. Coughlin: Because I'm just confused, because we say: well if it
22
is the outcome that matters, then why did we go into the arrest? You
23
know, because we could have just looked at the outcome and you say:
24
okay, we got a dry reckless, you reported it-boom, you're done. But
25
instead we spent four hours on the arrest.
26
27
Judge McElroy: You reported-
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: Now, if the outcome is the only thing that matters,
why are we looking at theJudge McElroy: You reported that the investigation was resolved
completely in your favor. That's the alleged misrepresentation.
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?
10
11
12
A: I believe you got a D in the the class.

Q: Okay, is that a passing score?
13
A: I believe it is a passing score.
14
Q: Okay do you know whether or not I'd ever received another D
15
16
17
18
19
from any professor?

Q: So, I passed the course. Would you usually pass people who
20
have committed academic dishonesty?
21
22
23
24
25

Q: Would you pass someone who had committed academic
dishonesty?
26
27
A: If, I was aware of it, no.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q: If you're aware of it, no you wouldn't. Okay. Why did you pass
me in this course?
A: I'm not the person who sits and judge.
Q: You don't give the grade, the pass/fail grade? Because that's a
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.
A: ZachMr. Coughlin: Yes, Mark.
13
A: I took at face value your representations that-
14
Mr. Coughlin: And I have some questions about that-
15
Mr. Tratos: Go ahead-
16
17
Judge McElroy: Please, don't interrupt.
18
A: I took at face value your representations that even though you
19
had written your paper on a computer, and even though your computer
20
was still available to you, and even though I had offered to pay to have
21
the paper retrieved from your computer-
22
Q: The one file, not the whole?
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: Please, do not interrupt, okay?

A: You were unwilling to do that for some reason. I took that at
face value had nothing to do with the fact that the computer itself
might not have contained it. I took at face value you're submitting
28
materials to me and I graded the material you submitted to me. I
thought it was highly unlikely to be-
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, objection, Your Honor, relevancy. The
question was why did you pass me, right?
an explanation, please, continue with your explanation.
6
7
8
9
Judge McElroy: He's giving
A: I took your representations to me at face value. I gave you a

grade in the class. I doubted sincerely your explanation, but I did not
sit as a judge.
10
Q: Is that your answer?
11
A: I think that's my answer.
12
Q: For why you passed me in this course? I did not set as a
13
14
15
16
17
judge? That is your answer?

A: That's my answer.
Q: Is that all one needs to do is not have you sit as a judge to pass
your course?
18
19
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it, so, let's move on to the next
20
21
22
23
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?
24
25
A: I wasn't involved in evaluating whether you were engaged in
26
27
28
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?
Mr. Coughlin: Can I ask that to Professor Tratos? I mean, he has
3
4
5
6
been a professor for many years.

Judge McElroy: I am going to let you ask that question. One more
question in this area.
Mr. Tratos: Is there a question?
Mr. Coughlin: So, I can't ask that question?
Judge McElroy: Go ahead and ask the question, although the fact
10
11
12
13
14
of it is is that youQ: All right, there's more interesting stuff to get to here. Whether
Mr. Tratos can tell me why I passed or not, we will move on from.
Mark, did you feel threatened by me during this?
15
A: Threatened by you?
16
Q: Yeah, threatened?
17
A: Threatened? Physically? No.
18
19
Q: You didn't feel physically threatened?
20
A: No.
21
Q: Okay, did you feel threatened in any way?
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 wereMr. Coughlin: OkayJudge McElroy: Let him finish. You asked it.
Judge McElroy: You are getting far afield, but it's not helping
3
4
5
your case.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but I promise this is going somewhere.
A: Which you were suggesting that we were going to have to go
through an entire chain of custody investigation on the physical
papers.
10
11
12
Q: Similar to what we're doing right now?

A: I don't know.
13
Q: So that made you feel threatened?
14
A: Why did you have something to hide?
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: Sustained. What is the next question.
18
Q: Mark, I noticed earlier today, you said: I was doing this
19
because I was concerned, not because I was threatened. You said that
20
earlier today.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q: Well, let me go back to your email where you say: I got your
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.
Mr. Coughlin: your exhibit is number 5, bates stamp page seven,
10
from Mark Tratos: I just received your somewhat threatening email
11
and was surprised by its tone and content.
12
13
14
15
16
17

Q: How does that relate to your statement earlier today that I
wasn't threatened?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I will let you ask that question one more
time, let's put it on the record.
18
A: I guess-
19
Q: Do you remember saying that earlier today?
20
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: Will you let him answer?

Mr. Coughlin: I'm just trying to clarify we know what we're
talking about.
24
A: Zach, yes, and I've made a distinction between being physically
25
threatened and being threatened, and there is two different states. One
26
is fear or apprehension of physical harm and one is someone is accusing
27
you of some kind of misconduct. Different animals altogether.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
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?
A: That is one of the things that can make someone feel
9
10
11
12
threatened.
Q: And you accused me of some kind of misconduct, right?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, misstates the testimony.
13
Q: And yet, you're the one who's feeling threatened?
14
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Sustained.
15
Q: Is there a double standard there, Mark?
16
17
Judge McElroy: Let's ask- its sustained, let's ask another question.
18
Q: The rules don't really apply to you, right?
19
20
21
22
23
Q: You don't need to treat other people as you would want to be

treated, right? Because, you are Mark Tratos, right?
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Sustained.
24
A: Zach, I've always tried to treat you courteously.
25
Q: Right. Right. Can you tell me, what's the first time you
26
communicated to me: I need another copy of your paper or that you
27
had lost my paper?
28
Q: Or that you had thrown my paper away.
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let you ask the question.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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?
11
A: I believe that may be it.
12
Q: Okay, so send me another- but earlier you said, when Susan
13
said: why did you 'say send me another copy of your paper', you said:
14
why I had not sat and judged.
15
16
Ms. Kagan: Objection, mischaracterized the testimony.
17
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection.
18
Mr. Coughlin: I have somewhere good to go with this.
19
Judge McElroy: No. I am going to sustain the objection
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: But, earlier he said: I took him at value. If I

hadn't even represented to you up to this point that I had given it to
you, then why would you say another? Because I had never said I had
given you anything up to this point.
Judge McElroy: I am going to take a recess, at this point, okay,
and I need to talk to the applicant.
Can we take a five-minute break?
Court Personnel: Certainly.
Judge McElroy: Okay, you could step down.
Mr. Tratos: Thank you.
3
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: What would you suggest, Judge? Do you have a

recommendation?
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
10
conduct himself in court. When I sustain an objection that means that
11
you cannot ask the question again the next time, number one. Number
12
two, the issue in this case is not whether in fact there was a paper that
13
existed or that the professor had the paper and that's not the issue. The
14
issue is your representation to the State Bar about what was the
15
outcome of that investigation. You are not helping yourself to argue
16
with this professor about the actual paper. You- the State Bar has
17
alleged that you said it was completely resolved in your favor- there's
18
some information that they're saying it wasn't resolved, that there was
19
a formal letter of warning. That's really the issue, not all this other
20
arguments that you are getting into. You would do best to let him go,
21
frankly, it has nothing to really do with this?
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: If part of this investigation is whether or not this

guy was threatened?
25
Judge McElroy: Its not. That was never an issue, you opened it up.
26
Mr. Coughlin: In the investigation? About whether or not I
27
28
received a letter of warning about? What was I warned about?

Judge McElroy: You were warned about your behavior.
1
2
3
Mr. Coughlin: Specifically? Was it about turning a paper in, or

was it about threatening somebody or what was it about?
Judge McElroy: You had characterized what you had received as
resolved completely in your favor. The State Bar present something
that says it was a formal warning letter.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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
with both incidences, the exhibit where she's sayingJudge McElroy: All I'm trying to tell you is this it is not helpful
13
for you to go into the details of whether there was a paper or not, how
14
he regarded-
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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,
so I'm not gonna take a lot more time. A little more time with Mr.
Tratos.
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
23
just take a second, if that is the issue, the how I characterized this
24
investigation, and their whole evidence consists of this one piece of
25
paper where the guy says: this is an informal letter of warning or he
26
says: it's a formal letter of warning in an informal letter. Okay, so
27
then we really need to focus on that stuff, right? Because that's
28
confusing, right?
Judge McElroy: And that has nothing to do with Mr. Professor
1
2
Tratos?
Mr. Coughlin: But who are they saying I threatened if it wasn't
Mr. Tratos? That's what I don't- if we could just look at exhibit
whatever it is that's his Formal Letter.
Judge McElroy: What exhibit is it?
7
8
Ms. Kagan: I want to stay off the top of my head it is 57.
Judge McElroy: Yeah.
10
Ms. Kagan: But, I am not entirely sure.
11
Judge McElroy: I think it is 53 or 57.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Yep, 53.
14
Ms. Kagan: 53, I apologize.
15
Judge McElroy: Okay, if you are found responsible for similar
16
violations of the Student Code your status as at UNLV will be
17
reconsidered.
18
19
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: I don't see anything about the academic dishonesty

here? How am I supposed to know what's what? Because here they're
talking about assaulting, striking, or threatening. I thought this was
about and email and a paper?
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, Mr. Coughlin is not under oath right
23
24
now.
Judge McElroy: You are arguing your case. Right. That is. The
25
26
point is-
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I'm trying to help this case find out where it needs
to go-
Judge 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-
If the nexus is as you said, if the key inquiries is as you say, how I
reported the resolution of this academic dishonesty investigation, and
this is their star witness in that, and what they're coming with, the
other thing they are coming with his my statements in my application
which say: okay, yeah I had to pay $100 for moving this computer, and
other-
9
10
11
12
13
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
14
53 is talking about, maybe I could understand, but I don't know if
15
they're talking about Mark Tratos, I don't know who they're talking
16
about threatening. I don't know if they're talking about a paper thing,
17
or, or what, you know?
18
Judge McElroy: All I'm saying is you need-
19
Mr. Coughlin: If you can tell me, if I'm acting stupid on purpose,
20
21
22
23
tell me.
Judge McElroy: I'm not saying you're acting stupid.
Mr. Coughlin: If you can read this and tell me, great, but I can't
24
understand what they're saying, you know, because I don't think they
25
really know what they're saying, I don't think-
26
27
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin is not under oath right now, he is

basically making a closing argument.
28
1
2
3
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
in and proceed with cross-exam. I've told you what the issues are and
you need to confine yourself to the issues and not widen this case.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Judge McElroy: As I see it that's exactly what you're doing. Okay,
resuming with the cross-examination of Professor Tratos.
By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: Mark, have you ever lost another student's paper?
A: No, Zach, I haven't.
14
Ms. Kagan: Objection, uh, mischaracterization-
15
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead, it stands. He says he has
16
17
18
19
20
hasn't. What's the next question?

Q: Would it surprise you that some of your former associates have
told me that you had lost other people's papers in the past.
A: It would surprise me.
21
Q: It would surprise you?
22
Judge McElroy: Okay, what's the next question? No editorializing.
23
24
25
26
27
Q: So, you're saying there's never been an incident while you were
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
home test or whatever came up missing. Think hard, Mark, think hard
because I want you to know.
28
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him ask it one more
time.
Q: Be sure that nobody who used to work for you knows about this.
5
6
Judge McElroy: And no editorializing.
Q: Make sure that never happened because you don't want to
commit perjury.
10
Judge McElroy: The question is, has it happened before?
11
A: Zach, I don't recall any paper having turned up missing. I do
12
13
recall that someone's take-home exam at some point at an
14
undergraduate level didn't arrive?
15
Q: Didn't arrive?
16
A: Right.
17
Q: And did the student say: No, I did turn that in?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q: This has happened before. Okay, so that happened before and

thenMs. Kagan: Objection, misstates the testimony.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, wait. What happened before?
26
Mr. Coughlin: One of his former associates has told me that he has
27
28
lost other people's papers before.

Judge McElroy: That's hearsay and it's editorializing.
Mr. Coughlin: But he just admitted to losing a take-home test.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony.
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: That's what you do, right?
Judge McElroy: Okay, what's the question?
Q: So, someone's take home test turned up missing before?
A: I have a recollection that someone did not have a take-home
10
11
test turned in. Not at law school, at an undergraduate class and I
12
believe it was more than a decade ago.

Q: Did they just die? Or, how did, I mean-
13
14
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Sustained. No more questions in this

area.
18
Q: Can you tell me who Jessica Wolfe is?
19
A: I can't.
20
21
22
23
Q: Okay, because in your initialJudge McElroy: Okay, he said he can't. So what is the next
question.
24
Q: This is my next question. In your initial email to UNLV
25
requesting my email address to talk about this missing paper, you also
26
ask for Ms. Wolfe's email address to talk about her missing paper-
27
28
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-
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: What are you referencing?

Mr. Coughlin: But you saw it too.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, ask the next question.
Q: Do you recall not having Jessica Wolfe's paper for this very
9
10
11
12
13
same class?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, the witness has already answered this
question.
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and him ask this question.
14
A: I don't.
15
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what's the next question? He doesn't
16
17
recall.
Mr. Coughlin: I'd like to take judicial notice that within the file
18
for UNLV on this matter there is a paper that says please give me
19
Jessica Wolfe and Zach Coughlin's-
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
Q: So, Mark, were you involved at all in this investigation,
because it-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Judge 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.
Q: That wasn't bringing it, right?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, argumentative.
13
A: Correct.
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, what is the next question?
15
Q: But, they never asked you, well, I mean, in order to investigate
16
an academic dishonesty investigation that's in conjunction, at least,
17
with your class, wouldn't they need to communicate with you a little
18
bit to do a thorough investigation?
19
20
21
Judge McElroy: Sustained. What's the next question.
22
Q: But they didn't communicate with you at all, right?
23
24
25
26
A: Not right.
Q: I don't understand. Did they communicate with you about this
investigation or not?
27
A: They asked me to give them all of the materials in my files.
28
Q: And did you discuss any other communications we had?
A: What other communications we had?
3
4
5
6
7
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
10
11
12
through a 12-step program and apologized for your conduct.

Q: Was many months later? Was it years later?
13
A: May have been years later.
14
Q: Was it, okay-
15
Judge McElroy: So what's the next question?
16
17
18
19
Q: So, that call really didn't have much to do with, like, you know,
you couldn't have turned that over to them, and I object to your
characterization of that call because it is inaccurate.
20
Judge McElroy: Okay, next question.
21
Q: So, just to make sure- so after you turn in these emails which,
22
from what I guess you said is that was our only contact was these
23
emails, the only thing that could have been threatening, Mark. The
24
only thing, right, is these emails? Okay, so they turn those over, you
25
turn those over, and after that you didn't have any sort of involvement
26
with those who were doing this investigation?
27
28
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
with this investigation that had anything remotely to do with this
investigation?
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.
7
8
9
Q: And the the substance of that communication was?

A: Here are the emails and this is what happened.
10
Q: Okay, do you know what the results of that investigation were?
11
A: I don't.
12
13
14
15
Q: Okay, can you turn to Exhibit 53, please? But, at that timeJudge McElroy: Wait. Let him look at Exhibit 53, and no
editorializing just a question.
16
A: All right.
17
Q: Okay, can you tell me what the final resolution was of this
18
19
20
matter?
21
Q: This academic dishonesty investigation?
22
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him answer the
23
24
25
26
question if he knows.
A: I don't know. This document, I have never seen before.
Q: Can you describe to me what it says?
27
28
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule it.
A: It appears that you were put on a formal notice of warning and
that if you were found responsible for similar violation of the student
code that you would have your status reevaluated.
4
5
6
7
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.
Q: I'm in the first paragraph under this code section, student
responsibilities, fourth line down: in addition it appears that academic
10
dishonesty did not occur
11
A: I see that.
12
Q: Okay, so it says that. So what was I put on warning of?
13
14
15
16
17
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy and personal knowledge.

Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer the
question.
A: I believe the issue was one of whether or not your conduct was
18
appropriate as we, you and I, communicated regarding the paper, and I
19
think what was disturbing to me was, what I'd raised the attention of
20
the University about, and that was that your conduct seemed to be
21
rather unusual in the way you handled yourself with respect to the
22
paper.
23
24
25
26
Q: Like being a communist or something?

27
28
Q: Like, we don't like your conduct so we are going to start an
academic dishonesty investigation We don't like your conduct, so we
are going to say academic dishonesty. Is that what happened, Mark.
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: Sustained, let's ask the next question.

Q: Was this about academic dishonesty or was this about conduct?
A: I didn't bring the investigation.
Q: But you played some role in it, right?
A: I turned over my emails.
10
11
Q: You turned over the emails one man sent you?
12
A: That's correct.
13
Q: One man turned over some emails another man sent him.
14
A: That's correct.
15
16
17
Q: Okay, so and then that brought forth an investigation that,

like, six years later, we're still rehashing, right, Mark?
18
19
Q: But you didn't have anything to do with that, right?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: Its sustained.

Q: Okay, so you don't know this, this investigation that you didn't
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.
Judge McElroy: Its editorializing.
Q: If I had gold teeth and corn rolls would you report my conduct
3
4
5
as well?
Q: Would you?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm going to stop this at this point, if you
9
10
11
12
can't ask a proper question, I'm not going to allow you to cross-examine
anymore, so.
Q: What am I being warned about?
13
A: I did not write this letter.
14
Q: Formal Letter of Warning? I suggest if you're going to be
15
involved in things of this manner, you should take a little bit more
16
interest in them.
17
18
19

Judge McElroy: Okay. He did not write the letter.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Seems kind of reckless.
21
22
23
24
25
Q: So, did did you feel assaulted or threatened?

Judge McElroy: Asked and answered and sustained. He did not
26
write this letter, okay, no more questions on this letter, he didn't write
27
it. You need to cross-examine the witness that wrote the letter.
28
Q: Okay, so, no academic dishonesty occurred in this in this
matter, is that correct? Is that what the final ruling was, Mr. Tratos?
3
4
5
6

Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer this
question.
A: That you pointed out to me, sir.
Q: That's correct? No academic disho- and so when I reported to
the State Bar that the academic dishonesty investigation was resolved
10
with a finding of no academic dishonesty, which is what I reported, that
11
was true, right?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
Q: In a box?
A: Not in a box, on a desk.
24
Q: On the podium you spoke from?
25
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
26
27
28
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
3
4
5
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?
A: Correct.
9
10
Q: And who collected these papers?
11
A: I did.
12
Q: Not the student of yours who was in the class?
13
A: No.
14
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
19
20
21
your website about how good he did in class.

Ms. Kagan: Objection, referring toA: There is no student that says what grades they got-
22
Q: Summa cum whatever?
23
Judge McElroy: Sustained, and the answer is stricken as well as
24
25
26
27
28
the question.
Q: So, these papers were all turned in and you collected yourself
and you put them in your car?
A: That's correct.
Judge McElroy: Okay I'm going to allow it.
3
4
5
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.
9
10
11
Q: For that class, you recall specifically that none of the papers in
that pile had handwriting on top of them?
12
A: I don't recall.
13
14
Q: Do you recall getting a paper that had a note written on the
15
paper that said I'm not turning this paper in in a digital copy because I
16
don't want this paper posted on the class's website as you indicated you
17
planned to do for your firm's website, to bolster it with student's papers
18
from the class. Do you recall that?
19
20
21
22
23
A: I don't.
Q: Do you recall telling the class that you're going to post their
papers on your firm's website?
A: I don't recall telling anybody that. I do recall that I said if
24
there were good papers we may do that, but I don't ever make a
25
representation that we're going to do something specifically without
26
ever having read the papers.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
Q: Okay, so and you didn't have us- did you have a class website for
this class?
A: There was a class website.
Q: And would papers be posted on that?
A: There were no papers posted on that web site.
Q: Okay, but did you tell the class that they would be?
A: No, I didn't.
9
10
Q: But you said it's possible?
11
A: Of course, that may have been possible.
12
Q: Without their permission you would post them?
13
A: No, Zach, not without their permission.
14
15
Q: You remember me asking that in class?
16
A: No I don't.
17
Q: Okay, so you'd have to get their permission before posting
18
19
20
21
them?
A: That would be common courtesy.
Q: Just common courtesy?
22
A: That's correct.
23
Q: You could do it if you wanted to?
24
25
26
27
28
A: Zach, is there a point to your question here?

Mr. Coughlin: I'm asking the questions, you just answer them,
okay?
Mr. Tratos: You certainly are.
Q: Yeah. So, it's just common courtesy you could take a student's
work product and post it on your firm's website if you wanted to,
without asking them?
4
5
6
7
A: No, I don't believe that's case.

Q: But you said before it's just common courtesy whether or not
you did it?
A: On the class website.
Q: On the class website? So, on the class website, you can do it?
10
You could post it on the worldwide web, student's papers without
11
asking them?
12
13
14
15
16

Judge McElroy: Sustained. Next question, no more questions in
this area.
Q: Do you recall getting a paper the day papers were turned in
17
with a note atop of it that said I'm writing my social security number
18
on here rather than my name because that has been the practice in all
19
my law school courses was to have blind grading.
20
A: Zach, I don't remember that.
21
Q: You don't remember getting a paper like that?
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?
28
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and let him explore this
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
one more question.

A: People could turn in their papers either with their name on it
or with a social security number on it, or with a student ID number on
it. The paper gets graded, all of those grades then get turned into the
law school, the law schoolQ: So, a student could turn it in-
10
Judge McElroy: Let him continue.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Okay I'm just asking if there is blind grading and
12
13
14
15
he's telling me about whatJudge McElroy: He can give an explanation.

Q: So, if a student can put their name on it, then its not blind- if a
16
student worked for you put his name on it, if he could then it's not blind
17
grading.
18
A: But, you're making a fundamental mistake and the
19
fundamental mistake was the exams were part of the grade sixty
20
percent. Forty percent was a paper. I don't know who gets what in
21
terms of the exam grades and all I can do is essentially say on this
22
particular portion of the class that I graded, I don't grade the exams
23
exams are typically graded at the law school level if they are multiple
24
choice and if they're an essay then I grade those, but there's never a
25
name on them, so I could never-
26
27
28
Q: It's always blind grading, right?

A: Pardon?
Q: It is always blind grading?
A: Always.
3
4
5
Q: Except for your papers in the class with your student who is
your employee.
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Then the paper's can have people's names on if they want?
A: Absolutely not.
9
10
11
Q: Right? Well, okay, explain to me because that sounds exactly

like what you've been saying.
12
Ms. Kagan: Objection, Your Honor.
13
Judge McElroy: Sustained. It's irrelevant, it's totally irrelevant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
We're getting far field.

Mr. Coughlin: It shows Mr. Tratos is flip flopping on what he's
saying.
Judge McElroy: It's irrelevant.
Q: Do you have any knowledge about this paper that I turned in?
20
I'm talking about the hard copy the day it was turned in in class. Did
21
you hear anything from any of your employees or anybody in the world
22
that, whoa, you know anything? Maybe we found that paper behind a
23
file cabinet or remember that time you-
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: That's the question, have you heard?

A: No.
Q: And you are swearing that under oath?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, before when you were describing that you turned in
these emails, the sole substance of our communications and this is to
somebody to start an academic dishonesty investigation, right?
A: Zach, I didn't know they were going to start an academic
investigation. I didn't think the emails were appropriate conduct from
a student who should have maintained a copy of this paper who should
have essentially kept a copy, and when I offered to retrieve the
electronic file from his destroyed hard drive and offered to pay for it
instead of doing that, treated me very unprofessionally-
10
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy. If he wants to go

into this stuff about offering to do something which he later withdrew
the offer-
14
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you know what? I am stopping the
15
cross-examination, period. You are it's over with in terms of Mr. Tratos,
16
because we're not getting anywhere and you don't seem to know how to
17
ask a proper question or a relevant question.
18
19
20
Mr. Coughlin: I have somewhere to go with this I assure you. Have

I not brought up some interesting points.
Judge McElroy: No. None whatsoever. So, I will go ahead and
21
allow you one or two more questions and then we need to wrap this up,
22
okay?
23
24
Q: You graded the papers?
25
A: I did.
26
Q: Did anyone else have access to the papers?
27
A:No.
28
Q: No one else read or helps you grade them?
A: No.
3
4
5
Q: Okay, do you still have those papers or where they turned back
to students?
A: I don't know if they were turned back to students.
Q: Would it surprise you if I was told nobody got their papers
8
9
10
11
back?
A: That wouldn't surprise me?
Q: Okay, so that's common, that happens?
12
A: Fairly common, happens at a lot of institutions.
13
Q: And when you turn these over, you indicated that you had no
14
discussions about the investigation that was to take place, but you had
15
problems with my conduct and from that we got an academic
16
dishonesty investigation.
17
A: I think the academic honesty investigation really grew out of
18
the unusual circumstances of asking for the electronic copy of your
19
paper, you asserting that your hard drive was destroyed, me offering to-
20
21
22
Q: Can you show us, show us in the testimony in the statements

where-
23
Judge McElroy: Hold on, let him finish-
24
Mr. Coughlin: He wants to go into-
25
26
Judge McElroy: If you interrupt anymore, I am not going to allow

you to ask any more questions okay so be warned.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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,
there's nothing I can do at that point. At that point in time when I've
made every effort to try to help you get a grade in the class to get you
graduated but you refuse to give me the opportunity to even help you
do that I had no alternative but to turn it over to the academic
administration and say tell me what to do. Okay, tell me what to do.
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
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q: Do you recall my saying that all the companiesJudge McElroy: Wait, will you let him finish the question, okay?
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
27
retrieved. Do you know of any companies that will retrieve only one
28
file from a hard drive?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I'm gonna allow you to ask, answer that
3
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
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?
14
Q: Do you recall me saying that to you?
15
A: I don't.
16
17
18
19
Q: Are you aware of how much it cost to have a hard drive

reconstruction?
20
Ms. Kagan: objection relevancy.
21
A: depends on how much damage there is.
22
23
24
25
Judge McElroy: I am going to go ahead and overrule it. Answer it.

A: depends on how much damage there was and I don't know about
what the damage was.
26
Q: Okay, give me an estimate?
27
28
Judge McElroy: Sustained, and let's no more questions in this
1
2
area. Okay, are you finished?
Mr. Coughlin: No, I am not. Not at all.
4
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: Okay, well I'm giving you another 10 minutes and
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
10
email exchanges about it I don't recall what they were.
11
12
Q: So, you can't say that I flat-out refused to have just that one file
retrieved?
13
14
15
16
A: As I recalled when I made the offer to you instead of accepting

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
17
18
his offerJudge McElroy: Give us the exhibit, and the page, and ask him if
19
20
it refreshes his memory.
21
Q: I will direct your attention to exhibit 5, page 21, last
22
paragraph,: further, OnTrack has informed me that they do not
23
retrieve individual files but would rather only do the entire retrieval
24
in bulk.
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I request to have the entire paragraph

read.
Judge McElroy: And that would be I have already informed you.
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Judge McElroy: Okay, well, what I will do is why don't you ask a
3
4
5
question?
Q: Okay, page 19.
Judge McElroy: Wait, in terms of page 21, what's the question?
Q: Your Honor I am sorry I meant to go with page 19.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so we're going to strike everything in terms
9
10
11
12
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-
13
Judge McElroy: But, what was the question?
14
Q: Okay, my question relates to page 19 and it relates to the same
15
retrieval aspect where it says in this email that you got it says in
16
conclusion all have OnTrack go ahead and send you a bill and I will
17
fax over a contract for you to sign though I do not believe is legally
18
necessary to have you retrieve this data. I clearly accept your offer for
19
you to retrieve this.
20
21
22
23
24

Q: Do you understand that this is an acceptance of your offer to
have my hard drive rebuilt, retrieved whatever. Page 19. Because he
sat here today saying I refused to do that, but yet, here it is.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, let him answer the question.
26
A: No, because-
27
Q: Are you reviewing Exhibit Five, Page 19?
28
A: Yes.
Judge McElroy: Okay and let him answer and please do not
interrupt him. If you interrupt him, I am not allowing you any more
questions, okay?
5
6
7

A: Specifically you wanted to use who you wanted to use to
retrieve the material setting the price they wanted to use that's not
what my offer was. My offer was I was going to help you since we were
10
an internet law firm, we had a-
11
Q: Can you refer to that your offer because-
12
Judge McElroy: No more questions, its over with.
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just asking him to refer to where they are in the
emails.
16
Judge McElroy: Its over with.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Because, its all in the emails, right? So he should be
18
able to point to it and not paraphrase it, that's the beauty of email,
19
Mark.
20
Judge McElroy: Okay, finish with explaining it. You know, I
21
have been more than patient. I'm telling you this is just a warning. If
22
you interrupt one more time, I am cutting off this cross-examination.
23
It's a warning, so you better not do it because I mean it this time.
24
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: All right, Your Honor.

A: Zach, your email goes on for several lengthy lines and you'll
27
notice that the end of that paragraph, which is a long run on
28
paragraph, you're talking about things that you believe are legally
necessary as personal service contracts not less than five thousand
dollars. What you had turned a simple effort on my part to help you get
your grade by getting a paper into me you turn it into some kind of
mental contest about whether or not you should have something
reconstructed. I don't know, to this day, Zach, I don't know what was
the problem with your hard drive or if you ever had a problem with
your hard drive. Honestly, I don't know. But it's a very unusual for a
student rather than help his professor try to get him the grade that he's
looking for so he can graduate it's very unusual for you to act this way.
10
And, later on, Zach, you did call me and you did apologize to me and in
11
fact apologize later on and in various communications and you told me
12
that you are in a 12-step program and part of your obligation was to
13
call me and apologize and I accepted and I thought we were back on
14
even, absolutely even footing and your conduct today suggests to the
15
contrary.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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
give it to, not what I had offered.
Q: Okay, does it say anywhere in here that I'm refusing to let you
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
way around here.
A: I don't recall I would ever write something like that.
Q: Okay, but did you ever write back to say, fine let's do this, but
1
2
let's do it this way? Or, no you didn't?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevancy, Your Honor.
Q: Did you ever follow up on that?
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and allow one more question
6
7
in this area.
A: I'm not sure exact but I think you already had a grade by this
8
9
10
time. I think you had already sent me your paper and I had already
given it a grade and this is coming after the fact.
11
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: Well actually a grade wasn't issued until December

2nd.
Mr. Tratos: Okay.
Mr. Coughlin: This is like October 10th, so at that point, no, this is,
16
this is shortly after you've-by way of refreshing your memory of the
17
chronology, class ends July 15, you write me July 7th, you write the
18
school asking for mine and Jessica's emails-
19
Ms. Kagan: Objection, counselor is testifying for the witness?
20
Mr. Coughlin: No, I am just bringing up some dates because he
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
email?
28
A: I don't recall because I think on September the 13th, Zach sent
1
2
me an apology and Zach specifically-
3
4
Q: Can you show this in the exhibit rather than just trying to
remember it?
5
6
7
A: Sure it's on page bates number 0009 of Exhibit 5 and there you
attached-
Mr. Coughlin: That's from September 13th?
A: That's correct.
10
11
12
13
Q: Okay, but the letter you were talking about was from October
10th.
A: That's correct.
14
Judge McElroy: Will you let him answer the question?
15
A: What I'm saying to you is we already had received from you a
16
paper sufficient for me to determine whether or not you were going to
17
pass or fail. Because I had a paper, I graded the paper, I said you're
18
going to pass and the question at that point was were you going to be
19
able to graduate from law school, I believe. Okay, so after I had already
20
given you a passing grade then you were then asking me to spend
21
thousands of dollars to retrieve your entire hard drive instead of a
22
single file. That's why I think it was not particularly relevant.
23
24
25
26
27
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.
28
1
2
3
4
5
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.
A: I don't know when they gave you your grade, Zach.
Q: So, you just don't know a whole lot of things, right?
Judge McElroy: You have like two minutes to ask your questions.
9
10
11
If this is how you want to spend it, go ahead.

Q: One question I truly am curious about is how do you go-
12
Judge McElroy: Make sure its relevant.
13
Q: How do you go from sending me an email to sing where I say I
14
only have this draft right do you recall that? And then you say okay
15
give me the draft, and I turn the draft in then next thing I know a
16
couple weeks goes by and then I get a letter on my birthday from the
17
Dean saying academic dishonesty investigation. Where do we go from
18
you saying turn in the draft to academic dishonesty? How do we get
19
there?
20
21
22
23
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative, speculation, relevant.

Judge McElroy: It doesn't call for speculation, I'm going to sustain
it, you have one more question.
24
Q: Do you recall saying turn in your draft?
25
A: I told you turn in whatever you had.
26
27
28
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?
5
6
Judge McElroy: Okay, Mr. Tratos, you may step down.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor are we taking a break?
Judge McElroy: Yes, we are.
10
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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
moment, don't say anything.

Judge McElroy: Back on the record
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, the State Bar calls Christine Smith to
the stand.
(The oath was administered to Christine Smith.)
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Good afternoon, Dean Smith? Are you currently employed?
A: Yes. I am employed at the University of Nevada Las Vegas the
William S. Boyd School of Law.
Q: And what is your position at UNLV?
A: I am the Associate Dean for Administration and Student
Affairs.
Q: How long have you been in that position?
A: Since September of 1997.
3
4
5
6
Q; can you just go into a little detail about what your

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
10
student affairs is that I am responsible for students Honor Code
11
matters and I do an extensive amount of counseling of students as well.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q: Are you familiar with the applicant in this matter, Zachary

Coughlin.
A: Yes.
Q: How do you know Mr. Coughlin?
A: Mr. Coughlin was a student and he is now an alum of the
school.
Q: I would specifically like to talk about three different topics
20
regarding Mr. Coughlin and the first one being an academic
21
disciplinary investigation that took place in the school regarding
22
emails between himself and Professor Tratos.
23
A: Right, in summer of, I believe 2001 Zachary was enrolled in
24
Professor Tratos' cyber law course. There was a paper due in that
25
course. Zachary had claimed that he had submitted that paper for the
26
course requirements. Professor Tratos had stated that he had never
27
received the paper. There were emails that went back and forth
28
between Zachary and Professor Tratos. Some of those emails were
determined to be unprofessional and the matter was sent to me and I
met with Zachary and spoke with Professor Tratos and others and I
submitted the case to Philip Burns who was the Student Conduct
Officer for the University.
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.
10
11
12
Q: regarding Mr. Coughlin, did you find that there was cause for a
referral?
13
A: I did.
14
Q: and what was the basis for that decision?
15
A: Um, the basis for that decision? You know what, Lynn took all
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
A: I do, yes.
Q: And how do you recognize it?
27
28
A: this is a letter that I wrote to the vice president for student
affairs Rebecca Mills and Philip Burns, the Student Judicial Affairs
Officer. Both are at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Q: are you referring to bates stamp page five?
5
6
A: yes.
Q: Is this the referral letter you just testified about?
A: Yes.
Q: and I'd like you to look at page 1 of the exhibit. Do you
10
11
12
13
recognize page one and how?

A: yes that's a letter that I wrote to Zachary asking him to
schedule a meeting with me to discuss the matter.
14
Q: and did a meeting actually take place?
15
Mr. Coughlin: objection, relevance.
16
17
18
Q: did a meeting actually take place?
19
A: yes, we did have a meeting.
20
Q: what happened at the meeting? Do you recall?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
forwarded the matter on to the university student affairs judicial
officers.
Q: ok I'd like you to look at a page 2 of the exhibit. Do you
recognize page two?
A: Yes, that's an email that I wrote to Mr. Coughlin.
Q: and what were you requesting in that email?
A: I was asking him to provide me with an explanation of the
3
4
5
6
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?
A: that appears to be Mr. Coughlin's response to me.
Q: and at the top of the email it states a date of 10/4/01. would it be
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
fair to say that that was before your letter to the student official
judicial affairs officer on October 11th, 2001?
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.
A: The date on Mr. Coughlin's email to me was October 4 th, 2001
16
and I wrote the letter and sent it to Dr. Mills and Philip Burns on
17
October 11, 2001.
18
19
20
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
21
that Mr. Burns found that there was not academic dishonesty but there
22
was another incident that had occurred involving Mr. Coughlin
23
dismantling a computer in the microforms area of the library and
24
taking that to another area the library to use it for his personal use
25
and in that situation Mr. Burns did find that there was a code of
26
conduct violation and he had Mr. Coughlin pay $100 restitution to the
27
University.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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.
A: yes.
Q: And, do you know what happened after this letter was sent, do
10
11
12
13
you know?
A: I don't recall. In connection with this this matter specifically?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
14
A: no.
15
Q: Did you have anything to do with the investigation conducted
16
17
18
19
20
by Philip Burns?
A: Not to the best of my recollection, no.
Q: In both matters? Did he investigate both matters that you're
aware of? The emails as well as the computer?
21
A: Yes.
22
Q: Turn to exhibit 58 and that is a seven-page exhibit I'd like you
23
specifically to turn to page 5 of the exhibit do you recognize page 5 of
24
exhibit 58?
25
26
27
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.
28
Q: was the computer that was disconnected for student use?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honored, relevance. I don't see what
is the point at issue or the relevancy. We're talking about the
computer? We already said that in the application.
5
6
7

A: this particular computer was not for a general student use. It
was dedicated specifically to the microforms area and it was for patrons
both students and the general public to use when they were looking at
10
11
microforms and using the microform station in the library.

Q: let me go back and just ask you is are the statements that you
12
put in this memo are were they an accurate representation of the
13
situation?
14
15
16
17
A: To the best of my knowledge.

Q: and what exactly happened in this instance.
A: To the best of my recollection one of the library faculty,
18
Matthew Wright had gone into the micro forms room on the evening of
19
October 11, 2001 and noticed that the computer was not there. The
20
computer, the mouse and the keyboard that they were not there so he
21
was concerned and he went for a walk through the library to see if he
22
could find it anywhere and he found Mr. Coughlin in another area of
23
the library using that computer and keyboard for his own personal use.
24
Q: Was Mr. Coughlin authorized to use that computer.
25
A: No.
26
27
28
Q: Was Mr. Coughlin authorized to dismantle the computer?

A: No.
Q: was Mr. Coughlin authorized to move the computer?
A: No.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: overruled.
Mr. Coughlin: But what are we getting at? Why are we
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
establishing this? That is why I objected, Your Honor.

Judge McElroy: Part of the charges in terms of lack of candor.
Mr. Coughlin: but didn't we say in the last thing with Tratos,
that's important because of how you reported it whether you reported it
or not. What's important about this?
Judge McElroy: My understanding is the State Bar is alleging
14
that when the question was asked have you been dropped, expelled, or
15
otherwise disciplined by any school for any reason other than academic
16
performance. You marked yes and then replied I was find $100 by
17
UNLV for moving a computer, monitor and keyboard for an hour on
18
December 1st. they are contending that there is some misrepresentation
19
and they can try to prove their case.
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
26
Judge McElroy: well, you know-
27
Mr. Coughlin: That is not in their Pre-Trial Statement.
28
Ms. Kagan: Yes it is.
Mr. Coughlin: Can we cite that?
Judge McElroy: you can ask in cross-examination. You need to be
3
4
5
6
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
language, in your opinion, was he fined for moving a computer
10
monitor and keyboard 10 feet to attach a computer for an hour on Dec
11
01, 2002?
12
A: I believe that without looking at Mr. Burns letter, I believe
13
that he was fined because he had violated the UNLV code and I'd have
14
to look at the specific section but I think it had something to do with
15
misuse of University property.
16
17
18
Q: Do you know why there was a fine of $100 in this case?

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
A: I don't know that I knew. My familiarity with that building
28
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.
6
7
8
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the situation with the library matter, I spoke to Matthew

Wright who was the law library faculty member who discovered that
the computer was missing. I also spoke with Mr. Coughlin and I spoke
with one of our IT staff members Donald Castle and I spoke with Mr.
Burns.
Q: I'd like you to turn to exhibit 18 please. Exhibit 18 is actually
26
a three pages because there's a front and back to one and two. Do
27
recognize exhibit 18?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
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.
A: I had recommended that he might want to see someone at the
15
University Student Wellness Center and I had observed throughout his
16
law school career several instances of erratic behavior. There were
17
other situations besides the situation with Mr. Tratos and Mr. Wright
18
there was some problems with his submission of his writing
19
requirement paper with Professor Jeff' Stemple. There was another
20
matter in connection with his enrollment in Associate Dean
21
LaFrance's intellectual property class, there was another matter in
22
connection with his employment in the law library, there was another
23
matter in connection with his treatment of staff members in the
24
library regarding returning overdue books, and I seriously questioned
25
his character and his ability to be a lawyer and to have clients.
26
Q: can we going into just a little detail about each of these
27
28
instances that you just discussed.

Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevancy.
1
2
3
Judge McElroy: why don't we recall the incidences and then ask
more questions.
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?
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, hearsay.
A: In that circumstance in the fall of 2001, Mr. Coughlin had
10
enrolled in Professor LaFrance's intellectual property course. He had
11
enrolled in that course because the matter with Professor Tratos was
12
still pending. He wasn't sure if he was going to pass that course. He took
13
Professor LaFrance's course in the instance that he might not pass
14
Tratos' course and then he would still have enough credits to graduate
15
in December of 2001. school started in late August 2001. he did not
16
attend class until October 4th if I recall, correctly. I believe that he
17
came late to that class according to communications from Dean
18
LaFrance. She had contacted him and asked him to provide an
19
explanation for his lack of attendance because she did have an
20
attendance policy and he had already missed several classes. The result
21
of that whole matter was that she administratively withdrew him
22
from her class. But in the process of that happening he had sent at
23
least one email that was unprofessional and rude.
24
25
26
27
28

Q: Then I believe the first incident you mentioned was with
Professor Stemple?
A: we have a requirement at the law school that each student,
prior to graduation as a graduation course requirement must complete
a substantial writing project, must write an article of publishable
quality. Mr. Coughlin had submitted a paper to Professor Stemple who
had determined that that paper-
6
7
8
9
10
11

Mr. Coughlin: if we're going to go into all these, can I go into the
Anson matter that she didn't bother to bring up?
Judge McElroy: If you want to muddy the field and bring more
12
and more of your conduct into this hearing that's fine. It's not working
13
for you.
14
Ms. Kagan: just as long as we're not going to ignore the Anson
15
thing. Because you forgot to mention it Christine, and go into the five
16
other things.
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: Enough.

A: Mr. Coughlin had submitted a paper in fulfillment of the
20
writing requirement to Professor Stemple who had communicated to
21
Mr. Coughlin that there were substantial deficiencies with that paper.
22
He had sent him a memo that outlined the deficiencies and he had
23
asked him to rewrite the paper addressing the deficiencies outlined in
24
the memo, and it took several weeks, possibly even months for that
25
whole process to be completed because he was in an email exchange
26
with Professor simple in what I would call you know just disagreeing
27
with the the quality of the paper and whether or not it fulfilled the
28
writing requirement-
Judge McElroy: This is not going to the truth of the matter, so I'm
3
4
5
going to overrule the objection.

Q: and then if we can just talk about his employment-
Mr. Coughlin: Sorry, Your Honor, you overruled the objection?
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.
10
Q: If we can just discuss Mr. Coughlin's employment at the law
11
library. You mentioned that was something that also caused you
12
concern. I believe that the law library faculty could better address-
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: objection, Your Honor. This is hearsay when she's

quoting all these other people.
16
Judge McElroy: I don't know. You haven't allowed her to finish.
17
Mr. Coughlin: but in previous answers she said well Dean
18
19
LaFrance told me and so-and-so told me

Judge McElroy: The problem is its hearsay only if it's going for
20
the truth of the matter. This is to explain why her opinion is that you
21
should not be a lawyer.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so in the last situation, she is explaining it

because there was a paper due and I had some discussion about what
was supposed to be in the paperJudge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin. Quit interrupting and act like a
lawyer. So, what's the next?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: Ill just make this brief. Were you aware of Mr. Coughlin's, any
of his contacts at the law library.
A: Yes.
Q: and can you tell me what you personally knew of?
A: I was notified by law library staff of a couple of incidents. One
incident involved Zachary taking money from a cash box. Another
incident involved Zachary having books checked out of the library.
They were overdue. A library staff member called him to tell him they
10
were overdue and request that they be returned to the library and he
11
swore at that staff member and there was another similar incident over
12
overdue books.
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?
By Mr. Coughlin:
19
Q: Dean Smith did you go to law school?
20
A: No. I did not.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q: But you are the Dean.

A: I am the Associate Dean for Administration and Student
Affairs.
Q: so, you're not a lawyer?
A: I am not a lawyer.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: And you didn't go to law school, but you're the Dean of the law
school?
A: I am not the Dean of the law school. I am the Associate Dean of
the law school. There's a difference.
Q: were you ever were the Dean of the law school.
A: I have never been a dean of a law school.
Q: Were you ever any other kind of Dean besides Associate Dean
9
10
11
12
13
14
at UNLV?
A: No.
Q: in the first years of existence? Didn't you become this Associate
Dean of Student Affairs later on. Werent' you originally like the Vice
Dean or something?
15
A: my original title was Associate Dean.
16
Q: Just straight Associate Dean?
17
A: yes and then as the school grew and an Associate Dean for
18
Academic Affairs was hired my title was changed to Administrative
19
Associate Dean for Administration and Student Affairs.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
going with? Where that was all that incendiaryMs. Kagan: Objection, is there a question pending?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: There's gotta be a question pending, and quit

editorializing.
Q: With Jeff Stemple, why even bring that up?
A: my concern was there are email notes in the file from you to
Professor Stemple that I believe were unprofessional?
Mr. Coughlin: objection, hearsay, no foundation.
Q: What was unprofessional?
10
11
12
13
A: I could tell you if I had that right in front of me. I actually

had it in my folder that Lynn has right now. If it's in one of these
exhibits I would be happy to tell you what was unprofessional.
14
Q: Was it submitted to the State Bar of California?
15
A: I believe so but I'm not absolutely certain.
16
Q: The Stemple thing?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A: I can't tell you for certain items. I don't know what is here in
front of me.
Judge McElroy: Your questions should be addressed to the
witness.
Q: we don't have that in the 69 exhibits. We don't have anything
about Stemple in hereJudge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I should warn you that you should
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 not-
27
28
Q: I noticed you mentioned like five things. You mentioned
1
2
something about the library, you mentioned something about being
enrolled in a class and then later not dropping the class or not taking
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?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lacks foundation.
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: You know what? I think I'm going to go ahead

and let you answer if you can.
A: I don't know. Are you referring to a Professor Anson situation
11
12
that is specific to you?

Mr. Coughlin: I was on the periphery of it. I had a meeting with
13
14
you about it.
15
16
Q: why she didn't bring this up, this Anson matter?
17
A; I don't know specifically what matter you're referring to and I
18
19
don't-
20
Q: Did a Professor Anson work at your law school?
21
A: yes.
22
23
Q: was he fired?
24
A: yes.
25
Q: what was he fired for?
26
27
28
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.
6
7
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.
10
11
12
13
14
A: Because its not relevant to you.

Q: so none of my conduct was unprofessional within that Anson?
Nothing I did related to the Anson or my meeting with you about him
was unprofessional?
15
Ms. Kagan: objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
16
Q: If you're saying I was professional, then please, tell me how
17
professional I was. If I was unprofessional please explain how and tell
18
me why you didn't bring that up-
19
20
21
22
23
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.
24
Q: In which I was professional.
25
A: yes which is why I have submitted what I've submitted to the
26
27
State Bar of California.

Judge McElroy: Okay, so what is the next question?
28
Q: So was I unprofessional in this Anson situation?
A: I don't remember the specifics behind that situation so I can't
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
answer that.
Q: Yet, you remember the specifics about a paper that was due in
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?
10
Judge McElroy: Sustained, what's the question?
11
Q: So you don't have any recollection of me writing you an email
12
13
14
about Professor Anson.

Ms. Kagan: objection, asked and answered.
15
Mr. Coughlin: What was the answer?
16
17
Q: Do you have in your in your file at school an email from me to
18
19
20
21
you about Professor Anson?

A: I believe that there is an email from you to me about Professor
Anson.
22
Q: And what was he fired for?
23
A: Objection, relevance.
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: Again, sustained.

Q: Why wasn't I asked to comment at all during Professor Anson's
trial?
Q: I noticed you said I believe you said you didn't speak when you
were investigating this academic dishonesty bit? You know the thing
where I acted unprofessionally and so we said well we're going to bring
an academic dishonesty charge? Or where you said I acted
unprofessionally and so you said well this is academic dishonesty right
here-
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: its sustained. Ask a question.
11
Q: I notice you said you didn't speak with other students about
12
this. You said I spoke with Don Castle and maybe somebody else and
13
somebody else-
14
15
16
17
Ms. Kagan: objection, misstates her testimony.

Judge McElroy: What are you talking about?
Q: This. I'm talking about the academic dishonesty investigation
18
stemming from Professor Tratos' course and your investigation of and
19
you stated that you didn't speak with other students in the class in
20
regard to this matter is, is that true?
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, that misstates her testimony.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Well, then, can you please clarify what your
23
24
25
26
testimony was?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection. Ask a question
that comports with what her testimony is.
27
28
Q: did you say something about whether or not you spoke with
students in the cyber law class related to the paper incident involving
Mark Tratos?
4
5
6
A: Today you mean?

Q: yes.
A: Yes, I did make a statement.
Q: can you tell me roughly what that statement reported?
A: I would have to have the transcriber read that back to me. I
10
11
12
don't want to misspeak.

Q: why don't you just give me roughly what you said?
13
Judge McElroy: Why don't you just ask a direct question?
14
Q: Did you talk to other students?
15
Judge McElroy: Did you talk to other students regarding this? It's
16
17
18
19
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-
20
21
Q: Did you ask other students?
22
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: I am going to strike all this editorializing.

Q: Did you ask other- They are certainly editorializing when they
are going into all these peripheral incidents withJudge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you cannot seem to ask a direct
question.
28
Q: did you speak to students in the class? The cyber law class
having anything to do with the investigation related to me and the
paper in Mark Tratos' class?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A: I don't recall.
Q: because earlier you said that you didn't.
Judge McElroy: okay she said she didn't recall. Ask the next
question.
Q: ok why earlier did you say that I didn't speak to other students
in the class?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, misstates her testimony.
Judge McElroy: sustained.
14
Q: so now okay-
15
Judge McElroy: Why don't you just ask a direct question?
16
Q: the question was I don't remember whether I spoke to other
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
students.
Judge McElroy: Okay, so she doesn't remember. Ask the next
question.
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: do you remember me telling you of several students who would

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?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to overrule the objection. Just, if you
9
10
11
12
13
can remember.
A: Re-state the question please.
Q: Did you ever talk to the students who I mentioned saw me turn
the paper in?
14
A: I don't specifically recall talking to other students.
15
Q: Would that be a normal thing in an investigation of this type?
16
A: Not always.
17
18
19
Q: why wouldn't you talk to eyewitnesses?

A: in in your specific situation I was determining whether or not
20
there was cause for me to forward your case to Mr. Burns and Mr. Burns
21
is the person who would speak with you and would speak with the
22
other students. I believe that in the course of his investigation he spoke
23
with other students in connection with the charges.
24
Q: so in determining whether or not to turn this into an official
25
academic investigation which has to be reported to any State Bar you
26
ever apply to, you might not know that because you didn't go to law
27
school-
28
Q: in the course of-
Judge McElroy: Can you please show some respect for people in
3
4
5
6
7
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-
Ms. Kagan: objection, compound, and asked and answered.
Judge McElroy: Sustained, what's the question.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: I haven't asked my question, so I don't know how it

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
16
thing was supposedly moved, was it in the same, did it have the same
17
four walls as from where it was moved?
18
Ms. Kagan: Objection, vague and ambiguous.
19
Q: 1, 2, 3, 4, there is four walls, was the computer in the same room
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
originally from where it was moved?

Judge McElroy: I overrule the objection.
Q: Because you are making it sound- from your earlier testimony
you make it sound like he dragged it across the street somewhere.
Judge McElroy: Will you just ask the question? Ask the question.
Q: Was it in the same room, same four walls containing the room?
A: I don't know I would have to ask Mr. Wright that question.
Q: but earlier you knew enough to-
3
4
5
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
8
9
in how can you describe whether it's in the same area or another area?
A: the way that the library was laid out, it was a very big space.
10
The particular room that the microforms was in, was a room not much
11
larger than this room. There were rooms, larger rooms adjacent to that
12
particular room. I don't know whether you were in that very same room
13
or if you were in the next room. But I do know that Mr. Wright had to
14
go looking for the computer so it wasn't right next to its proper spot.
15
16
17
18
19
Q: Do you recall Mr. Wright telling you that I walked up to him

and told him I had the computer when I saw him approach the
computer? And when I say computer I mean monitor, because the
hard drive was never moved, right?
20
Ms. Kagan: Objection, how many questions are pending?
21
Q: Because it was just the monitor and the mouse that were moved.
22
Judge McElroy: ok what's the question?
23
24
Q: Do you recall Mr. Wright saying I approached him?
25
A: No.
26
Judge McElroy: What' the next question?
27
Q: I will direct you to Mr. Wright's exhibit.
28
Judge McElroy: what's the number?
Mr. Coughlin: it's this exhibit 58.
3
4
Judge McElroy: What's the page number?
Q: Well, okay, here he says page 1.
Judge McElroy: please. What page? Page 1 of exhibit 58?
Mr. Coughlin: yeah.
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: what is the question? No editorializing.

Q: Well I'm asking, do you recall whether or not I went up to him
11
and I'm saying do you recall this email to you where it says
12
disconnected the monitor, keyboard, and mouse which is in
13
contradiction you're saying I moved the whole computer earlier but
14
anyway-
15
16
17
18
19
20
Judge 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?
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin-
21
Judge McElroy: its speculation.
22
23
24
25

Ms. Kagan: If he can point to where he's referring.
26
Mr. Coughlin: Paragraph three, line 4.
27
Judge McElroy: well first of all we don't need to go into this
28
because it's speculation. This is not something that she wrote.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: But its something that was written to her that she
used in starting her investigation.
Ms. Kagan: lack of foundation.
Q: Can you tell me what it means when it says I ran into Zach.
Does that mean I came up and approached him and said look I used this
to do yada yada?
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: objection, speculation.

Q: Did he just run into me?
Judge McElroy: Sustained. What's the next question?
13
Q: What do you think it means when he says I ran into Zach?
14
A: Well as I read this memo it's Mr. Wright says I entered the
15
microforms room at approximately six-thirty pm Thursday night and
16
the monitor, keyboard, and mouse were all missing. I immediately
17
thought they were stolen. I looked and wandered around when I ran
18
into Zach. Zach had disconnected the monitor, keyboard, and mouse. so
19
when he says he ran into you-
20
Mr. Coughlin: and can you continue to where he says he had
21
moved them into one of the carrels in the microforms room? Is that the
22
same microform room that you just mentioned earlier?
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: Before anyone answers any questions in this

matter I'm going to tell you if you interrupt a witness and the middle of
an answer any more times I am not allowing you to cross-examine the
witness and I mean it. So you need to wait and listen to the answer and
28
not interrupt and no more editorializing or you will not be asking any
more questions of this witness and I mean it.
3
4
5
6
7

Judge McElroy: So, if it happens again you're out of here. Now ask
a question.
Q: Does this letter from Mr. Wright indicate that I had moved
these materials into one of the carrels in the micro forms room? Is that
microforms room he's referring to-
10
Judge McElroy: one question at a time.
11
A: Yes the memo that I'm reading now says that you had moved
12
the monitor, keyboard, and mouse to one of the carrels in the
13
microforms room.
14
15
Q: How many microforms rooms are there?
16
A: in that library there was one microforms room.
17
Q: o it was moved somewhere in the same room as where it
18
originally was, the computer, right?
19
A: according to this memo, yes.
20
21
Q: and that room is no bigger than this room?
22
A: it's was about the same size, yes.
23
Q: it's not really the same shape though right? It's an oblong room,
24
25
26
27
28
right?
A: It was an oblong room you're right.
Q: okay, so if it was moved from one wall to the next it was moved
about 10 feet right?
A: I think it was probably more than that.
3
4
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: okay I'm going to allow the answer to stand.

What's the next question?
Q: I'd like to ask you about this letter, this exhibit 53. Our
problem here is they are, we're saying didn't-
Ms. Kagan: Objection, is there a question?
10
11
12
Q: was I cleared of any academic dishonesty?

A: in this letter from Mr. Burns he says that you are to consider
13
this letter a formal letter of warning and that if you're found
14
responsible for similar violations of the Student Code, your status as a
15
student at UNLV will be reconsidered.
16
Q: and what was the violation I was found, does that mean I was
17
found guilty of some violation? It says similar. That to me implies
18
there was one to begin with, so what was the one to begin with? What
19
was the violation?
20
21
22
23
A: I need to read Mr. Burns' letter.

Mr. Coughlin: Please do.
A: I believe from reading the paragraph above that he's referring
24
to academic dishonesty. He says it appears that academic dishonesty did
25
not occur.
26
27
28
Q: okay, so is that the violation?

A: I believe that that's the violation he's referring to in number
one of.
Q: So is it a formal letter of warning for something that didn't
occur? That didn't, like as in, that didn't occur, I'm going to warn you to
not do that again. Don't you not do that again, Mr. Coughlin.
4
5
6
7
8
9

Judge McElroy: What is the question? Ask one question at a time
let it be no compoundA: I'm sorry, I've read farther into the memo, and farther into the
memo it says in the matter of Section P, I recommend the following
10
sanction and section P is assaulting, striking, threatening or causing
11
physical harm to another.
12
Q: and who was that done to?
13
A: I don't recall.
14
15
Q: Wouldn't that kind of be important to put in a report?
16
A: This is not my report.
17
Judge McElroy: Its not her report.
18
Q: But you kind of were in charge of student affairs, right? And
19
one of your, one of your kind of duties would be to understand what's
20
going on right? With this particular investigation if you're going to-
21
22
A: this was not my the investigation nor was it my report.
23
Judge McElroy: what's the next question?
24
Q: what was I found guilty of here?
25
26
27
28

Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him re-emphasize
and re-emphasize the problem.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: Because I see it says academic dishonesty not did not occur and
I'll noteJudge McElroy: What's the question?
Q: what was I guilty of? What am I being warned about?
A: in the letter from Mr. Burns, it says in the matter of Section R
you accepted responsibility for the disconnection of the computer in
the Boyd's School of Law library.
Q: okay but we're not talking about the computer thing anymore,
10
we're talking about the the Tratos thing right? Because that's what the
11
first paragraph is dealing with.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: so what's the question?

Q: because I reported section R, so my question is what in Section
whatever the first section I guess section P although he's got Q's and
then he's got, so I don't know what he's talking about. But somehow this
first section deals with the Professor Tratos thing, yet there seems to be
this language of assaulting, striking, threatening, or causing physical
harm to another? And so later on down the page he goes in the matter of
section P, I recommend the following sanction. Now, this is after
saying academic dishonesty did not occur and you know elsewhere in
this letter talked about how this is an informal resolution, yada, yada.
But, the point is-
24
Judge McElroy:What is the question?
25
Q: that he is recommending this sanction, and the sanction relates
26
27
to Section P, which is a assaulting, striking, or threatening. The onlyJudge McElroy: What is the question of this witness?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q: Who was assaulted, striked, or threatened? The guy who got

all these emails? Was he assaulted, striked, or threatened?
Judge McElroy: Ask a question. If she knows.
Q: who was assaulted, striked, or threatened?
A: I believe that it was determined that the tone of your emails to
Professor Tratos could be considered threatening.
Q: does it say that anywhere in here in his report?
A: I don't see that specifically in this report.
10
11
12
Q: Because I know it is not your report, its his report right?

A: that's right.
13
Q: Okay, and it doesn't say anywhere in here-
14
Judge McElroy: you have got two minutes to finish up your cross-
15
examination.
16
Q: It doesn't say anything about me assaulting, striking or
17
threatening Professor Tratos, right? And when I reported this to the
18
State Bar my language in Exhibit 1, page 25 is-
19
20
21
22
Q: My question is what does this say, even. What are you saying I
23
24
25
26
did and what are you saying you found me guilty of?
Ms. Kagan: objection, lack of personal knowledge.
27
Mr. Coughlin: that's never been sure.
28
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?
3
4
5
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
6
7
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
16
question.
Mr. Coughlin: I thought that was the whole point of this as Judge
17
18
McElroy spelled it out earlier was whether or not I accurately reported
19
this.
20
21
22
23
24
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.
25
Judge McElroy: what's the question?
26
Q: If I told the State Bar, any State Bar in relation to this
27
incident as far as academic dishonesty goes I was cleared. Would that
28
be accurate?
A: yes.
Q: That would be accurate?
3
4
5
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
10
investigation that arose out of a summer school class I took from
11
Professor Mark Tratos, that's accurate right?
12
13
14
15
A: yes.
Q: okay when this academic dishonesty investigation was started
what did you think I had done? What were you charging me with?
16
Ms. Kagan: Objection. Speculation.
17
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain the objection, it has been-
18
19
Ms. Kagan: Lack of personal knowledge-
20
Judge McElroy: gone over ad nauseum.
21
Mr. Coughlin: so, I'm never actually going to get told what they
22
23
24
25
26
thought I did?
Judge McElroy: The truth is you got the best answer you could
from her. She said that there was not academic honest dishonesty
found. Ok I mean how much more do you want? And that was the
question in terms of the State Bar so.
27
28
Q: okay so when I write in my letter to the State Bar, I wrote after
the Student Judicial Affairs Officer conducted a full investigation
interviewing several students the matter was resolved with a finding
that no academic dishonesty took place on my part, that's accurate
right?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A: yes.
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?
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
21
sent to faculty and staff, because of the various incidents that I had
22
referred to earlier, it led me to believe that you had some type of a
23
problem.
24
25
26
27
28
Q: so does anyone who has any problem with any of your faculty
or your staff have a substance problem?
A: No.
Q: Do they have some type of problem?
Ms. Kagan: objection, vague.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q: would you say that if I was reporting this moving a computer

incident to a State Bar that I would have been accurate for me to have
told the bar, given what you know about this situation as I did in my
application, would you say that this is an accurate description of what
took place when in exhibit 1, believe it's page thirteen, under this
scholastic discipline section I said to have you ever been dropped,
suspended, expelled or otherwise disciplined by any school for any
reason other than for academic performance and I'll note that-
12
Judge McElroy: please no editorializing.
13
Q: okay, and I say I was fined $100 by UNLV for moving a
14
computer monitor and keyboard 10 feet to attach to my computer for an
15
hour, dot, dot, dot. Is that accurate?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ms. Kagan: I request the whole sentence be read.

Judge McElroy: please read the whole sentence, Mr., yes, its your
question.
Q: To attach my computer for an hour in December 1 st, 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.
Q: but we know it was in the same room right?
A: according to Mr. Wright's memo that we read earlier yes it was
in the same room.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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.
Ms. Kagan: objection, misstates her testimony.
Q: Can you tell me if this is accurate or not? Besides how many
feet it was moved? Is that what it comes down to, how many feet it was
moved?
A: this statement is accurate with the exception of I can not
testify to the distance that you moved the computer because it's not
10
stated in Mr. Wright's note to me and I did not see it myself.
11
Q: Okay, but we can say it was in the same room?
12
A: Yes.
13
14
15
16
Judge McElroy: okay what's the next question.

Q: when when was I told that I was going to pass the cyber law
course?
17
A: I don't know.
18
Q: Okay, but it wasn't for a while right? Because we didn't even
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
get this letter fromMs. Kagan: objection, relevance.

Judge McElroy: her answers was I don't know. What's the next
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?
Ms. Kagan: objection, speculation.
Q: ok, if you can answer.
A: I don't know.
Q: Wouldn't his report need to have been issued before you could
determine whether or not I was going to graduate? My passing the
course and graduating was contingent upon the outcome of this
report?
6
7
8
9
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
10
and this was the only course still out there, was this what was holding
11
up? You couldn't have given me a grade until this was out right?
12
13
Judge McElroy: And speculation. Next question its sustained.
14
Q: this came out November 27 2001, right?
15
16
17
18
19
A: Right.
Q: Would I have received a grade in the cyber law course prior to
the resolution of this matter?
A: You would not have received a grade in the cyber law class
20
until you had submitted a paper to Professor Tratos for his review and
21
for him to grade. I don't know when he received your final paper, which
22
he based your grade upon.
23
24
25
26
27
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.
28
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 for any other students whose papers he had lost in the
cyber law course? For instance, Jessica Wolfe's?
7
8
9
10
11

Judge McElroy: okay I'm gonna go ahead and let you and ask that
question and if she can answer it.
A: I don't remember him asking me for contact information on
12
another student. I don't remember anything in connection with Jessica
13
Wolfe.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: so let's ask the next question.

Q: ok do you recall seeing in the bates stamped copy of my file that
you gave me, included with the other emails to Professor Tratos, the
first one was from Professor Tratos to you or your assistant. Do you
recall him asking for emails for Zach Coughlin and Jessica Wolf?
20
Ms. Kagan: objection, which exhibit is Mr. Coughlin referring to.
21
Mr. Coughlin: I'm referring to a document Dean Smith gave me.
22
Judge McElroy: do you have it here?
23
24
25
26
27
28

Judge McElroy: well then, don't ask about it. What's the next
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?
3
4
A: Yes.
Q: Did she take cyber law?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him ask that
8
9
10
11
12
question.
A: I would have to look at the course roster to be absolutely
certain that she took that course or her transcript and I don't have
either one of those documents.
13
Judge McElroy: five more minutes.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I'm done.
15
Judge McElroy: okay thank you. Any redirect?
16
17
Ms. Kagan: No.
18
Judge McElroy: you may step down.
19
Ms. Kagan: may we take a two minute recess?
20
21
22
Judge McElroy: yes, two minutes.

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
27
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Officer Cho, are you currently employed.
28
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.
4
5
6
Q: do you recall an incident that took placeMr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevancy.
Judge McElroy: Overruled, she hasn't even asked the question.
Mr. Coughlin: His whole point in being here. What's the relevance
9
10
11
12
13
14
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
15
interrupt me, I will ask you to leave the court room and the witness can
16
testify without you being present. Do not interrupt and when I make a
17
ruling that's it.
18
19
20
21
22
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.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor?
23
Q: And how do you recall that incident?
24
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, Your Honor, can I ask a question of you?
25
26
27
28
Officer Cho: Sigh.

Judge McElroy: yes, what is the objection.
Mr. Coughlin: well it's not an objection, its a question.
Judge McElroy: No. I'm not going to allow you to ask questions.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
3
4
Judge McElroy: you need to proceed in a legal manner-
Officer Cho: Sigh.
Judge McElroy: that's raising objections-and with a legal
7
8
9
10
objection.
Mr. Coughlin: okay.
11
Q: Officer Cho, so how do you recall that incident?
12
A: I remember-
13
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry, objection, relevancy-
14
15
16
17
Officer Cho: Sigh.

Judge McElroy: Overruled. I've made my ruling. Let's move on to
the next question.
18
Mr. Coughlin: I am not arguing your ruling, Your Honor, I am
19
just wondering for the flow of the trial, with the last point we dealt
20
with it helped me because you spelled out what we were looking for,
21
and that was whether or not I reported accurately to the State Bar, so
22
what I'm trying to do is focus my mind on what are we looking for here-
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: Allow him to testify and if you feel that there's a
problem afterward you can ask the whole thing be stricken as
irrelevant. Right now let's ask the question.
Q: Officer Cho, how do you recall that incident?
A: Can you explain?
Q: let me let me go back for a minute.
A: I'm sorry.
3
4
5
Q: that's okay. Do you recognize the applicant in this matter

Zachary Coughlin?
A: yes, I do.
Q: how do you recognize him?
A: We made contact with them in approximately 2001.
9
10
11
Q: can you explain that contact that you had with Mr. Coughlin,
back in 2001?
12
A: yes, I was working the Las Vegas Strip on bike patrol at the
13
time. I was riding with my sergeant that day. Riding south bound, I
14
looked over towards the left and I noticed a security officer running
15
after Mr. Coughlin. There was another police officer that was running
16
with the security officer after Mr. Coughlin. So I road down to assist
17
and we got Mr. Coughlin into custody. We continuously verbally told
18
him we're police officers and to stop. He didn't listen to us. He turned
19
around, kept running. On the strip we don't wear regular uniforms, we
20
wear bright bright canary yellow uniforms that says metro police on
21
there, so it's highly visible on there. He continuously kept running so
22
myself and I think it was Officer Jordan tackled Mr. Coughlin to the
23
ground and as he got to the ground he was lying prone. He put his arms
24
in into his body and he would not cooperate with us. It took
25
approximately four officers to basically get his arms to his side and
26
then finally restrain them. Once he was restrained I remember one of
27
the officers asking him why are you running, what's wrong with you
28
and he basically repeated why are you running what's wrong with you?
He asked again, what's your name and Mr. Coughlin asked the officer
what's your name, and just kept repeating what the officer had told
him. As of that time I basically left with my sergeant.
4
5
6
Q: were you present when Mr. Coughlin was asked his name?
A: Yes I was.
Q: And what did he respond to that if you recall.
A: what is your name? He just kept repeating what the officers
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were asking him.

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
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
of our time and we couldn't identify him, so that's the only reason why
he got arrested.
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
26
how much they know the law. I remember him saying I know the law,
27
I'm a student becoming an attorney and I didn't believe him. I
28
remember talking to one of the officers, reference that, saying you
know we wouldn't do anything, you know, something like that going to
another state or doing anything like that with our profession, why
would he do something like that? So, when I got this for subpoena for
this I was actually surprised.
Q: let me ask you also, one more question?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry. Can we clarify what we wouldn't do
7
8
9
10
11
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?
12
Q: Officer Cho, would you characterize Mr. Coughlin as resisting
13
arrest in this matter or was he very helpful with the police and listen
14
to everything the police would tell him?
15
16
17
18
19
20
A: More or less if he was helpful with the officers, I don't think he

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:
21
Q: hello Officer Cho.
22
A: hello.
23
24
25
26
Q: Can you clarify what that last point was about we wouldn't
have done that with our profession if we went somewhere?
A: okay, like for , my wife and I went to Utah last week. We got
27
pulled over. I was cooperative with the officers knowing that I'm an
28
officer and what I meant was that anywhere I go, knowing my
profession, I'm gonna be cooperative with everybody that pretty much
does the job that I do. I think being an attorney is a high profession just
like being a doctor being a police officer, or firefighters. We normally
get the respect when we make contact with them. That's what I meant
by it.
6
7
8
9
Judge McElroy: So, what's the next question?

Q: and you felt I was disrespecting you?
A: I didn't only feel that, all the other officers did. When
10
somebody is, the number one thing that we learned in the Academy is
11
the most dangerous thing of anybody's body is this, the hands, because
12
you could have either a gun, a knife, or whatever . we'd like to see the
13
hands. What you did when you were lying prone and none of us was on
14
top of you,so you know, it wasn't like-
15
Q: After I was tackled?
16
A: well after you were tackled, we were on top of you, and then we
17
moved away, and we said put your arms behind your back. I remember
18
one arm being held, the other are being held by another officer because
19
we know well enough that your arm is not going to move when
20
somebody's on top of you. We kept telling you to put your arms, take
21
your arms out, let me see your hands, let me see your hands. You didn't
22
do that.
23
24
Q: What did I do?
25
A: you kept your arms in, in your torsal area.
26
Q: All right. Officer Cho, you recall me ever making a statement
27
about I was putting my hands behind my back? You guys said
28
something like what are you doing and I said I was putting my hands
behind my back?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A: I don't recall that no

Q: okay because in this police report on page 65 it is Exhibit 65,
number one about halfway down the page beginning with: Officer Cho,
Officer C. Jordan badge number and myself gave chase and tackled
Coughlin as we were trying to take Coughlin into custody he again
ignored orders to stop resisting and put his hands behind his back.
10
A: I didn't even write that, so?
11
Q: ok but that means I put my hands behind my back, right?
12
A: I don't remember him putting his hands behind his back.
13
14
15
16
Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation and Mr. Coughlin is testifying

at this point.
Mr. Coughlin: I am just reading the page.
17
A: I don't remember him putting his hands behind his back.
18
Judge McElroy: I overrule the objection. He doesn't remember.
19
20
21
22
23
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.
24
Judge McElroy: sustained. Why don't you ask him-
25
Mr. Coughlin: You have the report, Officer, right?
26
27
28
A: I have the report somewhere out there, yes.

Mr. Coughlin: No, no, it's right there in those books for you.
A: Oh.
Judge McElroy: Please look at exhibit 65, first page.
3
4
5
Q: we're talking about halfway down the page.

A: Okay, I am looking. It says stop resisting and put his hands
behind his back. I think the way he worded, it because we were asking
you to stop resisting and put your hands behind your back. When I
looked at this report-
9
10
Q: you didn't write this, right?

A: this is the first time I've seen it when I got it. When I read this
11
report it didn't make sense to me on certain parts but you know what,
12
when I now read it, that's how I remember a lot of it, you know so that's
13
what it basically meant.
14
15
16
Judge McElroy: so what's the next question?

Q: okay do you remember anybody's saying why did you put your
17
hands behind your back like that? We thought you were reaching for a
18
gun in your belt or something and my saying no I was putting my
19
hands behind my back so you guys would know I didn't have anything
20
and you could do what you needed to do?
21
A: No, because you had your hands like this.
22
Judge McElroy: Record should indicate he is putting his hands in
23
24
25
front of his chest.

Mr. Coughlin: right, but here it says-
26
A: it took about four officers to finally pry-
27
Mr. Coughlin: He wouldn't stop resisting-
28
Judge McElroy: Wait, you can not talk over the witness.
1
2
3
4
5
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.
Q: Does it say that here?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance
A: Ha. Sigh.
Q: You are just remembering that.
9
10
11
12
13
14
A: I always believe that if you didn't write it you didn't do it but I

didn't write this.
Q: ok so it does in the report that I was putting my hands behind
my back, right?
15
A: no, it says we were asking you. It says right here: stop
16
resisting- Oh boy. and put. stop resisting and put his hands behind
17
his back. Sigh. I think he just worded it wrong.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Q: You said I wouldn't have been arrested had I done something
quite simple, right?
A: yes.
Q: Because I didn't do anything enough to get arrested for?
26
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him ask that question.
27
A: ok we just like anything else, just like a traffic citation we go
28
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
identification somehow, and that's the reason why he arrested you.
8
9
10
11
12
Judge McElroy: okay, so whats the next question?

Q: if you handcuffed someone, would it be very hard to get their
wallet and identification if you have them handcuffed and you're able
to do what you want?
13
14
Q: Would that take that much time?
15
16
17
A: Go ahead.
18
Q: overruled means you answer it, right?
19
Judge McElroy: Ask it again.
20
Q: If you handcuff someone, how much time does it take to get
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
their wallet and identify them?

A: okay, here's the thing, though, it took us a long time basically. I
don't need. A second could be five minutes. Five minutes could be 10
minutes. Okay, like I said I remember all of us, all of us trying to get
your hands behind your back and before getting your wallet, we asked
you several questions. I remember the officers asking you several
28
questions and you continuously spoke back, and basically repeated the
questions officers asked you.
3
4
5
6
7
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, thatJudge 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?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
Q: what kind of stuff did we talk about the law? What kind of
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 arrestA: I don't remember it exactly. I don't remember exactly.
24
Q: but you don't like it when people say stuff like that, do you?
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: Well earlier you said that you didn't like it when people try to
tell you how to do your job?
A: I never said I don't like it.
Q: what was that comment about I wouldn't go to another town
and do that?
A: Sigh.
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
10
analogous to what's going on here, because it's not cop and a cop, right?
11
Judge McElroy: Okay, enough already, I am sustaining the
12
13
14
15
16
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,
would you go and talk to a lawyer that way?
17
Judge McElroy: I am sustaining the objection.
18
Ms. Kagan: Objection, argumentative, speculative, irrelevant.
19
20
21
Judge McElroy: No more question, okay. You have two more

minutes, ask relevant questions.
22
A: Sigh.
23
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know what's relevant about this entire
24
25
26
27
28
thing? I reported it so what's relevant? Why have we spentJudge McElroy: Your behavior.
Mr. Coughlin: Spent Officer Cho's time to bring him here to ask
him about something that's-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Judge 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?
A: yes.
Q: Okay and he said he was running and then he saw us and he
kept running.
A: Yes.
Q: what would be the opposite of that?
A: What do you mean the opposite?
13
14
15
Q: To stop on a dime?
16
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: Sustained, the question is finished. What's the

next question.
Q: if someone's already running and an officer say stop, that
20
person isn't going to stop on a dime, right? I mean that's not like
21
humanly possible right? To stop that fast?
22
23
24
25
26

Q: How fast could someone stop if they're running?
27
Judge McElroy: Sustained, its irrelevant.
28
Q: If someone's running and you told him to stop-
Judge McElroy: why are you asking a question that Ive already
1
2
said you cannot answer? You cannot question.
Mr. Coughlin: I am asking a different.
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: You can't, it's not, it's the same. Ask another
question that has not been sustained okay in terms of an objection.
Q: if someone is running and is being pursued by some other
civilians and a police officer sees this and says stop running, would you
expect that it would take the person a certain length of feet or time to
10
go from an all out out run to stopping?
11
Ms. Kagan: objection, irrelevant.
12
Judge McElroy: sustained. What's the next question.
13
14
15
16
Q: how far did I run after you would have expected that the
reasonable person would have been able to slow their original pace and
stop?
17
A: The distance you ran, you ran from the Polo Towers, from
18
where I saw you to where I stopped you, which is the shopping center, is
19
going to be approximately, and that's Officer Jordan chasing after you
20
along with the security officer chasing after you would be
21
approximately 25 to 30 yards and what you have stated was that I
22
remember Officer Jordan asking you about running and stuff like that
23
later on and you have stated something about the movie theater. You
24
were sneaking into the movie theaters and that's the reason why you
25
thought security was chasing you because you were, you don't pay to go
26
into the movie theaters but you're watching movies without paying for
27
it going into theater. What I didn't understand was your running
28
southbound from the polo towers on towards the shopping center. The
movie theater is at the South. You were actually running towards the
movie theater. That's what I couldn't understand because there's no
movie theater on the north of where you were running from. That's
what I didn't understand. So I remember you know that the specific
area you're talking about so you ran approximately twenty-five to
thirty, thirty yards.
7
8
9
10
Q: from being at a complete run, a complete sprint, originally, to

hearing stop, to stopping and being tackled?
A: You didn't stop.
11
Judge McElroy: What's the question.
12
Q: Right before I was tackled did I put my hands in the air?
13
A: No, you went to the ground.
14
15
Judge McElroy: what's the next question.
16
Q: so when I was tackled was I still running when I was tackled?
17
A: how could you still be running? No, you went to the ground.
18
Q: right before I was tackled?
19
20
A: right before you were-
21
Q: Right before impact? Was I running or had I stopped running?
22
A: I don't remember, all I remember was you were still running
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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.
3
4
5
6
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-
A: I would never have tackled you if you would have-
Judge McElroy: You did not stop and raise your hands. You were
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
tackled while you were running, okay? I don't need to hear any more,
move on.
Q: didn't you just say that you were not sure whether or not I was
running before I got tackled?
Judge McElroy: sustained, no more questions in this area. Four
o'clock.
17
Q: Do you recall an officer making fun of my shoes?
18
A: no, I don't.
19
20
Q: do you recall an officer making any jokes at my expense?
21
A: No, I don't.
22
Q: Do you recall a woman officer who was there?
23
24
25
A: Black? White? Hispanic?

Q: Yeah. A black woman officer. Who was that?
26
A: That was my sergeant at the time.
27
Q: what's her name?
28
A: Goode. She is a lieutenant now.
Q: You don't recall her making jokes about my shoes and the way I
1
2
3
4
5
6
ran?
A: No.
Q: Do you recall her taking a flashlight and putting it five inches
from my face and leaving it there for several minutes?
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer the
9
10
11
12
question.
A: No, I don't.
Q: did you play football in high school?
13
A: yes, I did
14
15
Judge McElroy: Too late.
16
17
18
Q: You played football? A sport where you tackled people a lot,

right?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A: Ha.
Q: That didn't have anything? You wouldn't have a propensity to
tackle people, right? Its not like you are living out high school football
again, right?
26
Judge McElroy: I have sustained the objection.
27
A: Ha.
28
Q: that's not it, right?
Judge McElroy: ask a new question.
Q: what position did you play?
3
4
A: Ha.
Judge McElroy: Sustained. No more questions in this area.
Mr. Coughlin: Doesn't it show a propensity towards tackling
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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
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.
20
Mr. Coughlin: I am a Nevada or Novota?
21
Judge McElroy: Okay, anyway are you finished with your cross-
22
23
24
25
26
27
examination? I'm going to say you have. Do you have any redirect?
Judge McElroy: Okay, you may step down. Let's see if we have any
more witnesses. You can go.
(End)
28
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?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: State Bar calls Mike Toms to the stand.

(The oath was administered to Michael Wayne Toms.)
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Morning Mr. Toms, are you currently employed?
A: Yes.
13
Q: Where?
14
A: at the Sacramento County District Attorney laboratory of
15
16
17
18
Forensic Services, my title is supervising criminologist

Q: How long have you been employed as supervising criminologist
A: For approximately a month now.
19
Q: What about before that before that.
20
A: I was a criminologist for six years at the same laboratory. Prior
21
to that I was a criminologist for six years at the Santa Clara county
22
laboratory forensic services and prior to that I worked for a private
23
forensic laboratory known as Drug Detection Laboratory for three-and-
24
a-half years.
25
Q: Do you have any special certifications or degrees.
26
27
28
A: Well I have a bachelor's of science in forensic science and
minor in chemistry from Sacramento State University I've completed
court-
4
5
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.

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
10
dealing with the effects pharmacology of the various drugs.
11
Q: In your position currently, what are your job duties.
12
A: Well currently supervised 10 forensic analysts that analyzed
13
Blood, urine, biological tissues and fluids and solids or substances for
14
the presence of toxic substances or illicit compounds.
15
16
Q: What about in 2003 what were your job duties then.
17
A: In 2003 I was working with the same laboratory I was a-
18
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, relevance if we're worried
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
about time I don't see where or what we're doing with this.
Mr. Coughlin: All right. Can I go on and on with stuff and not
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.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, good. Just as long as I can.
Judge McElroy: You are a lawyer, you should know better.
28
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, I do know that.
Judge McElroy: And I am beginning to find that-
3
4
5
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: Just as long as I can go on and on with stuff where

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.
A: Prior to that I was a criminologist and I worked in the forensic
10
toxicology section of laboratory which also included the alcohol section
11
as well.
12
13
14
15
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?
16
A: yes.
17
18
A: It's a toxicology report and the alcohol analysis report from the
19
20
21
laboratory forensic services of Sacramento County.

Q: can you explain what's contained on page 1 of Exhibit 68?
22
A: Yes, it's a toxicology report by criminologist Lisa Caughlin and
23
reviewed by criminologist Debby Henry. The results of the testing that
24
were performed included the presence of 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC and
25
hydrocodone.
26
27
Q: Can you explain what those two substances are?
A: 11-nor-
9-carboxy-THC is an inactive metabolite of marijuana from use of
28
marijuana and hydrocodone is also commonly known as Vicodin, its a
prescription narcotic for pain relief.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
body converts it into so the person would have had to have ingested
marijuana at some point in time for their urine to contain this
compound.
Q: Can you tell from this report when the person ingested
11
marijuana?
12
A: No.
13
Q: Do you have any idea from your own experience what-
14
15
16
17
Q: When a person in order to test with these substances detected
18
and confirmed, of the amount of marijuana that someone would have to
19
ingest?
20
21
22
23
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?
24
A: Typically marijuana, this particular compound, 11-nor-9-
25
carboxy-THC, can be detected one to three days after use. If a person is
26
a chronic user then it can be as much as 60 days if they use it
27
chronically.
28
Ms. Kagan: I have no further questions at this time.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Judge McElroy: Cross-examination?

By Mr. Coughlin:
Q: You say 60 days?
A: 60 days would be an extreme for somebody who chronically
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
10
doses depends on your body chemistry t-this this particular compounds
11
are lipophilic drug means that it likes to store in fat in the body fat so
12
it can be released later on so if you're a heavy user then it could store in
13
in your system for a long period of time.
14
15
16
Q: You said someone would have had to ingest marijuana, can you
tell me what that means?
17
A: They could have eaten it or smoked.
18
Q: Could they have been in the same room as people smoking
19
20
marijuana?
A: At the level that was detected in this particular sample there
21
has been studies that show passive inhalation as a possibility somebody
22
could have a level of that but the scenario that was performed was
23
unrealistic, it was several people sitting in a car sized area, and there
24
was so much smoke-
25
26
27
28
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
participants had to wear goggles so to get these this type of a level
that's a pretty unrealistic scenario.
Q: Why did they wear goggles?
A: Because it was so much smoke pumped into the room that they
weren't smoking that they weren't actively like puffing on they were
just sitting in the room.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q: Would they've gone blind if they hadn't worn goggles?

A: No but their eyes were irritated and that's why they they
requested goggles.
Q: Would their eyes have gotten red? Is that what you mean by
irritated?
A: yes certainly.
Q: Okay but there's nothing more substantial than that?
A: No I would say thats everything.
18
Q: So maybe wearing goggles is a little melodramatic?
19
A: No, it's actually important to know that because it lets you
20
know how much smoke was piled into this small area, which makes it
21
the unrealistic scenario that I spoke of.
22
Q: And these people were Californians?
23
A: I have no idea.
24
25
26
27

Judge McElroy: Overruled. It's already come in, the answer he had
no idea whether they were Californians.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q: Can you tell me would these people wear goggles if were

cigarettes being smoked in the car?
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him answer.
A: I don't know if there was cigarettes being smoked in the car but
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
asking let's say there is not marijuana in the car and they're just for
10
some reason they're testing cigarettes or something and there's several
11
people in a car and some of them are smoking. Would you have
12
provided goggles in that case.
13
14
15
16
17

Judge McElroy: (laughing) I am going to go ahead and let him, for
the record.
A: Well if they put enough smoke in there that would irritate the
18
eyes of the people and they requested goggles I would I would tend to
19
give them goggles yes.
20
21
22
23
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.
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?
28
1
2
3
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.
6
7
8
9
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
10
presumably that I've never been provided with a chromatogram and as
11
far as I can tell it hasn't been propounded, it hasn't been put into
12
evidence, and it hasn't been designated as an exhibit.
13
Judge McElroy: Do you have that document with you?
14
A: Yes. (sound of papers being passed)
15
16
17
Mr. Coughlin: I object to entering that document at this stage in

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
23
24
the blue right now would that be all right too?

Judge McElroy: If the State Bar prosecutor brought it up, you
certainly could.
A: Do you want me to give you the complete packet or just the one?
25
Judge McElroy: What are you referring to, what did you?
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: Okay, why don't we ask another question then?

Are you going to withdraw that question?
Mr. Coughlin: Sure.
Judge McElroy: Okay, the question is withdrawn.
Mr. Coughlin: I have nothing further.
4
5
Judge McElroy: Okay, do you have anything further?
Ms. Kagan: No.
Judge McElroy: Thank you may step down.
8
9
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: Good use of time, good use time and money. That's
good.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor I would ask that Mr. Coughlin be
12
refrained from making some remarks (laughs) other than his
13
questioning.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
making remarks and histrionics.
Mr. Coughlin: Can we? Can we? Thanks. I just don't understand
21
why he's being called. What did that accomplish? It took 30 minutes.
22
Are you getting paid by the witness?
23
Judge McElroy: For the record it's accomplishing you had, you had
24
you asserted in your application that you were not under the influence
25
of marijuana right? The State Bar is entitled to bring witnesses that
26
say that you were under the influence of marijuana, it's quite simple.
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: But that didn't prove, that didn't speak to that at
all. It just spoke to what we already knew.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Judge McElroy: I am not going to argue you can make that in

your closing argument.
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?
10
Mr. Coughlin: Could they have just referred to this report?
11
Judge McElroy: Its hearsay without the witness coming in. So
12
13
14
15
(laughs) who's your next witness.

Ms. Kagan: I recall Mr. Coughlin.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin please take the stand.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Can I call Ms. Kagan to the stand?
17
Judge McElroy: She is not on trial you are.
18
Mr. Coughlin: But I'm not asking for her to be on trial. So I won't
19
20
21
be able to call her as a witness?

Judge McElroy: No.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Seems symmetrical.
23
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin do you understand that you're
24
25
26
27
28
under oath or do you want to take the oath again?

Mr. Coughlin: I understand I am under oath.
Judge McElroy: Thank you.
By Ms. Kagan:
Q: Mr. Coughlin, do you currently consume alcohol?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: I object on basis of confidentiality, privilege-
Mr. Coughlin: I am not sure I understand your question.
8
9
10
Q: Do you currently consume alcohol, do you currently drink

alcohol?
11
A: I am currently drinking water.
12
Q: Have you had a drink of alcohol in the past year.
13
14
15
Q: when is the last time you had a drink of alcohol?
16
A: I am not sure.
17
Q: Isn't it true that you told the LAP program that the last time
18
19
20
21
you had alcohol was January 2003?

A: I am not sure.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 73.
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: And this exhibit has been authenticated, or?

Ms. Kagan: You stipulated to it, Mr. Coughlin.
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I did?
Ms. Kagan: No, I'm sorry, you didn't stipulate. It has been
3
4
5
6
admitted into evidence.

Mr. Coughlin: At what point did it become admitted?
Ms. Kagan: During the first day of trial.
Mr. Coughlin: When we went through the exhibits?
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Because I don't remember going through this one.
10
11
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 72 was admitted pages 33 to 57.
12
Ms. Kagan: Turn to page 52.
13
Mr. Coughlin: Okay so we're just doing? Your honor, I'd like to
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
stipulate to have the entire exhibit admitted then.

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
correct?
25
A: I believe it says that. So what page is that?
26
Q: Page 52. So let's just get this straight pages 31 through 57 is
27
28
that your LAP intake questionnaire?

A: I'm not sure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ms. Kagan: Well it says page 31 it says LAP intake questionnaire

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?
Mr. Coughlin: I think that's what it says.
Q: Is that your handwriting Mr. Coughlin?
15
A: I am not sure.
16
Q: Do you think somebody else submitted this on your behalf?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, calls for speculation.
18
19
20
A: Okay, I'm not sure, Susan.
21
Q: So, I'd like you to review the document pages 31-
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: This confidential questionnaire?

Q: Pages 31 to 57 and let me know if this is something that you
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
28
believe I did fill out a confidential questionnaire for their confidential
program at some point, and this might be it.
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.
6
7
8
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
10
Exhibit 49 is entitled Authorization for Disclosure and Release of
11
Information signed Zach Coughlin dated June 24th, 2005. Is this
12
something that you filled out, Mr. Coughlin?
13
A: I believe so.
14
Q: And this says at the top: I, Zach Coughlin hereby authorize the
15
lawyer assistance program of the State Bar of California (hereinafter
16
LAP) or program to disclose and or obtain information or files or
17
records pertaining to me including information files or records
18
concerning drug/alcohol treatment or use, psychiatric treatment,
19
AIDS/HIV and other communicable communicable diseases, test
20
results and or diagnosis and treatment with the State Bar of California
21
Committee of Bar Examiners, correct?
22
23
24
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?
25
Q: But was it good at the time that you signed it, Mr. Coughlin.
26
A: I don't know.
27
Q: But you did provide this to LAP?
28
A: Mmmmm. I think so?
Q: And in fact you provided a renewed authorization on April 20 th
of this year didn't you?
4
5
6
A: I'm not sure. I remember you making a lot of threats if I didn't,

but, very coercive type behavior on your part.
Q: What I'd like to do is turn back to the original Exhibit 72 and
7
8
go back to page 52A: Objection, Your Honor.
9
10
Judge McElroy: What is the objection?
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I just don't see a release for all this
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
20
Mr. Coughlin: So, I don't get to know where the release is?
21
Judge McElroy: No. You need to figure that out on your own.
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: Do we not need to have a release for that

confidential program?
Judge McElroy: I'm not answering the question. I'm not here on
25
26
27
28
trial.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so just let the record state that we don't know
where the release is.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
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?
10
A: I'm not sure.
11
Q: Do you have a date of sobriety?
12
13
A: I'm not sure.
14
Q: Now, Mr. Coughlin, you testified earlier-
15
Mr. Coughlin: And, can you define what you mean by sobriety?
16
Q: When is the last date you drank alcohol, Mr. Coughlin?
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: That's what you mean by sobriety?
19
Ms. Kagan: Indeed.
20
Mr. Coughlin: That is your definition of sobriety? I'm not sure.
21
22
23
Q: Did you drink alcohol in 2007?

A: Not that I remember.
24
25
A: I'm not sure.
26
27
28

A: I am not sure.
1
2
3
Q: Did you drink alcohol- well let me let me go through this for a
second. You lived atMr. Coughlin: Objection Your Honor if I tell her I'm not sure and
she wants to go year by year, isn't that badgering the witness or
repetitive?
6
7
Judge McElroy: Not yet.
Q: Mr. Coughlin, did you drink alcohol in 2004?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, badgering the witness.
10
11
12

Mr. Coughlin: what year was that?
13
Ms. Kagan: 2004.
14
Mr. Coughlin: did I do what?
15
Ms. Kagan: drink alcohol?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I'm asking you that, Ms. Kagan.
Judge McElroy: Okay, she's to ask the questions its direct
examination, you are not to ask her any question.
Mr. Coughlin: I am trying to understand what she is asking. I
don't understand your question, then. I don't know if mouthwash with
alcohol in it, if you consume that, and if it seeps into the membranes in
your mouth, if that is drinking, I don't know, so.
5
6
7
8
9
Q: Okay let's go through, so in the pastMr. Coughlin: Not to say I did that but Id like to know whether or
not that amounts toQ: In that past three years have you consumed any beer?
10
A: I don't think so. I am not sure.
11
Q: In the past four years have you consumed any wine?
12
13
A: I am not sure.
14
Q: In the past four years have you smoked or ingested marijuana?
15
A: I'm not sure.
16
Q: In the past four years did you ever keep alcohol-
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: And I object, Your Honor, on the basis of-
19
20
Mr. Coughlin: So, I don't even get to say what the basis is? That's,
21
22
23
24
that's what's up, right?

Judge McElroy: Sure, what's the basis?
Mr. Coughlin: Nah, never mind.
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, next question.
26
Mr. Coughlin: Oh, well, the basis is the Fifth Amendment.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so I am on the stand, but I don't have a

constitutional right.
Judge McElroy: No.
Mr. Coughlin: Say, if she asked me: did you murder this person? To
not incriminate myself. I don't have that constitutional right?
Judge McElroy: That's not the question.
Mr. Coughlin: But, any question that involves incrimination?
10
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just wondering if the Fifth Amendment still

applies in this country.
13
Judge McElroy: You understand what a court procedure is.
14
Mr. Coughlin: I think it's something that the Constitution
15
16
17
18
attaches to, I think?

Judge McElroy: Okay, great. Okay, the next question?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know. Does the constitution attach to this?
19
20
Q: Did you drink wine in the past four years?
21
22
23
24
A: I'm not sure.

Q: In the past four years, did you keep any alcohol in your
residence?
25
26
Q: Did you keep any drug paraphernalia in your residence in the
27
28
past four years?

A: I wouldn't know. I don't keep track of everything that is in my
3
4
5
6
residence.
Q: You lived at 1255 Jones Street Apartment 132 in Reno, Nevada
from October 2004 through April 2006, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know what do you mean by lived there?
Ms. Kagan: do you have a question about what lived means?
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, what do you mean by it?
10
11
Q: Was that your residence?
12
A: I'm not sure.
13
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 3 page 2, are you going to turn to that
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
exhibit?
Mr. Coughlin: No, why don't you just go ahead and read it for me?
Q: Well this is your update to the State Bar dated February 15 th,
2007, and on page 2, it says October 2004 through April 2006, 1255 Jones
number 132 Reno, NV 89503, and that's under residents history. Was
that a true statement?
21
Mr. Coughlin: Well, you asked me if I lived there right?
22
Ms. Kagan: I asked if that was your residence.
23
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: I don't remember you asking that question.

Judge McElroy: Well the question now is-
26
M and K in perfect unison: What that your residence?
27
A: Was that my residence at that time? I think so.
28
Q: And you lived alone at that residence correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
A: I don't know that you could say that, I had people stay over at
different times.
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, when I asked you that same question
your deposition you testified that you lived alone at that address.
Mr. Coughlin: Well that depends what you mean by lived.
Judge McElroy: Why don't you go on to the next question?
Mr. Coughlin: Can I use the restroom?
Judge McElroy: You have five-minutes.
10
11
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Great, thanks so much.

Judge McElroy: Back on the record, resuming with the direct
examination of Mr. Coughlin.
Q: I just want to direct your attention Mr. Coughlin to Exhibit 57-
15
page 108 when you're asked about the unlawful detainer actions that
16
took place on Jones Street. Question: did you have a roommate at the
17
time? Answer: No.
18
19
20
21
Question: you were living alone? Answer: yes, I was.:

Mr. Coughlin: Do you have a question?
Q: That's what you stated at deposition, that's what you testified
22
at your deposition correct?
23
A: I'm not sure.
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Now, I'd like to talk about the eviction that took place at 1255
Jones street apartment 132Mr. 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.
3
4
5
Q: Were you provided notice of that eviction, Mr. Coughlin?

A: I am not sure.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 63 please.
8
9
10
11

Q: Exhibit 63 has to do with the unlawful detainer that happened
at 1255 Jones street apartment 132 correct?
12
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure it's your exhibit.
13
Q: Page 2 to that exhibit in the Justice Court of Reno township in
14
and for the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, River Arms
15
Apartments-
16
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, can we call it Nevada, because I'm not

calling this Califainia, you know.
19
Judge McElroy: Its Nevada.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Its Nevada. Can you say that? Can you make those
21
22
23
24
25
sounds with your mouth?

Q: Case number REV-2006-00909, now you already testified that
you wereMr. Coughlin: Where was this? What state was this in?
26
Q: You already testified that this unlawful detainer did occur.
27
Mr. Coughlin: Where?
28
Judge McElroy: The court is going to issue a warning to you if you
do not act and comport yourself in accordance with a lawyer then I'm
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?
8
9
Judge McElroy: Yes.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Like if someone had gold teeth and cornrows?
11
Judge McElroy: Yes.
12
Mr. Coughlin: and walked in with gold chains then they would
13
14
15
not be a lawyer right?

Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin there is no question pending.
16
17
Q: Now, you already testified earlier that you were I mean there
18
19
20
21
22
23
was an unlawful detainer action against you in this case correct?

A: I don't remember Rings a bell?
Q: However at your deposition you testified that you didn't get
notice of this unlawful detainer action or eviction, but you had to leave
on the 19th when an officer came to your residence to evict you correct?
24
A: I am no sure out that.
25
Q: Exhibit 57-page 99 when a question line starting with 19 what
26
27
happened in the process of the eviction?

Mr. Coughlin: This is page 99 you are talking about?
28
Ms. Kagan: Page 99, Exhibit 57, line 19 what happened in
Mr. Coughlin: 57? Page 99?
3
4
5
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 57.

Mr. Coughlin: Bate-stamp 99? Because mine only go up to 51. Are
you talking about the court reporter's page numbers?
Ms. Kagan: Page 99 of the deposition transcript.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay because you're not going by bates stamps.
9
10
11
12
Judge McElroy: Could you read into the record the deposition
transcript?
Ms. Kagan: Yes, I'm sorry it is line 19 question what happened in
13
the process of the eviction answer I was evicted question were you
14
physically removed from the premises answer an officer came to my
15
premises and told me I was being evicted which I didn't that was the
16
first I heard of that I didn't know that something happened with the
17
notice such that I didn't get it or wasn't aware I hadn't opened the letter
18
I'm not sure and so on the nineteenth of that month when the officers
19
showed up and said you're evicted I did have to leave on that day
20
question and this is going on to page 100 starting line 5 was that the
21
same residence that was the subject of two unlawful detainer actions
22
against you answer I believe so yes question and those and are those the
23
unlawful detainer actions of the River Arms Apartments was the
24
residence called River Arms Apartments answer yes skipping down to
25
page 101 starting on Line six when did you first become question when
26
did you first become aware of the judgment answer I'm not sure I don't
27
know that by being aware that I'm evicted I know that there's a
28
judgment I didn't understand that and in your application that you
filed that was probably the first time I was aware that there was an
actual case number and that they had won a judgment against me. Now
I'd like to return back to page Exhibit 63 and on page four are you
looking at Exhibit 63, Mr. Coughlin?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A: Yes, Susan.
Q: Please turn to Page 4, an affidavit of service and it states Mark
Stroess being first duly sworn deposes and says that affiance is a citizen
of the United States over 18 years of age not a party to the within
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
14
April 19th, 2006 time 12:41 pm Mr. Coughlin was that notice which is
15
reflected on page two of the same exhibit posted on your door at 132?
16
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know.
17
Ms. Kagan: May I approach Your Honor?
18
19
20

Ms. Kagan: Here is Exhibit 73, the photos. And let the record
21
reflect that I am taking the originals of Exhibits 73 A through M. Mr.
22
Coughlin, I'm going to show you what's marked as Exhibit 73?
23
Mr. Coughlin: This is A through M?
24
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Because, its not up in here.

Ms. Kagan: Yes, I have it right in my hand.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: But why isn't it in here? I see N and O, but I don't
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.
Judge McElroy: Has he been provided with these documents?
Ms. Kagan: No, this is impeachment, Your Honor.
10
11
12
13

Mr. Coughlin: I object. How can you not provide this stuff and
then show up on the day of the trial, you know?
14
15
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect that I am showing Your Honor
16
17
18
19
20
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.
21
Mr. Coughlin: So that doesn't mean you don't provide them.
22
Judge McElroy: You are getting a copy now, you're looking at it.
23
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Well then I request- whatever.

Q: Do you recognize Exhibit 73a?
26
A: No.
27
Q: Isn't that your door that you lived at at Jones Street? The one
28
you were evicted from?
1
2
3
4
5
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.
Ms. Kagan: Actually that's the original, I will give you a copy.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I'll give you a copy.
Judge McElroy: Please give her back the original.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I don't get to give her a copy?
Judge McElroy: You will get a copy.
9
10
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Eventually? After the trials over, maybe I'll get a
copy to prepare for it? Is that, is that the case? Good, that sounds fair.
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect that I'm giving Mr. Coughlin a
copy of Exhibits 73a threw 73m.
14
Mr. Coughlin: For the first time on the third day of trial?
15
Ms. Kagan: I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 73B,
16
let the record reflect I am showing Your Honor. Mr. Coughlin, this is
17
Exhibit 73B and in this exhibit of the inside of Apartment 132, there's a
18
book, you can see a binder with the name of Hale Lane on it. Do you
19
recognize this exhibit?
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: Which one was that?
22
Ms. Kagan: 73B.
23
Mr. Coughlin: Which one one here? Can you do these by number?
24
25
26
27
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
them.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, I'm showing you the original they are
marked on the back.
Mr. Coughlin: Ok 73b you say, what about them?
Q: Do you recognize this exhibit.
A: No. Well, I mean, I was just provided with it, I don't know how
I could recognize it.
Judge McElroy: Why don't you take some time to look at it.
Q: Now do you recognize it?
10
11
A: No.
12
Q: Is your apartment?
13
A: I'm not sure.
14
Q: But you do see that there's a Hale Lane booklet in the picture,
15
16
17
on the table?
A: I can't read that.
18
Q: But you did work at the law firm of Hale Lane, correct?
19
A: Yes, I did.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, have these been authenticated yet?

Ms. Kagan: I haven't offered them into evidence yet.
Mr. Coughlin: How can they be presented if they have not been
offered into evidence?
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.
3
4
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin, I would like you-
8
9
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, foundation.
10
11
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect that I'm showing Your Honor
12
Exhibit 73C. Mr. Coughlin, I'm showing you what's been marked
13
Exhibit 73C which is a photo of alcoholic beverages, bottles as well as a
14
blue bong. Do you recognize Exhibit 73C.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: I object to your characterizations of those and no I

don't recognize them.
Ms. Kagan: Take a minute to look at those.
Mr. Coughlin: I see empty bottles, see a drum set. I don't know
what I don't know what the blue thing is.
Q: Do you recognize this exhibit?
A: No. I haven't been provided with that exhibit either, so.
Ms. Kagan: Well you have it right in front of you now. Was this
kept in your apartment at 1255Mr. Coughlin: I don't even know that this is my apartment, this is
some picture-
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: The record should reflect he's denying it's his
apartmentMr. 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
to the Court Administrator.
Mr. Coughlin: So how can they be not be in evidence if she's
showing them to you?
Judge McElroy: They're not into evidence. They don't become part
of this trial.
Mr. Coughlin: So you just don't? Okay, so I can show something to
a jury and its not in evidence?
Judge McElroy: What I'm saying- In writing my decision this will
18
not be part of the evidence, it's not admitted into evidence and unless
19
she gets someone to authenticate it because you've obviously said you
20
don't know whether it's your apartment or not.
21
Mr. Coughlin: Can I use the restroom, Your Honor.
22
Judge McElroy: No, you can't. What is the next question.
23
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I do need to use it, so, if there is some point in
the near future when I could?
26
Judge McElroy: Can you hold on for 15 minutes?
27
Mr. Coughlin: That would be pushing it.
28
Judge McElroy: Okay, let's push it. What's the next question?
1
2
3
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: Actually, I don't think I can Your Honor, it won't

be long.
Judge McElroy: Five seconds.
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
10
11
12
13
14
attorney that may now be classified as a patent attorney, correct?

Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance, importance, whatever,
whatever.
15
A: I don't know, is that what it says?
16
Ms. Kagan: I'd like you to turn to Exhibit 74, page 2 of that
17
exhibit is a printout from the United States Patent and Trademark
18
Office and it says last name Coughlin, first name Zachary-
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: This is Exhibit 74?

Ms. Kagan: 74, page 2.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, foundation, authentication.
23
Ms. Kagan: I haven't put it into evidence yet, Your Honor.
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Well, then put it into evidence.

Judge McElroy: Okay, she hasn't put it into evidence. You need to
look at it, Exhibit 74.
28
Mr. Coughlin: I don't understand why things can't be put into
evidence or propounded before trial. It's like this rogue prosecutor
thing in the Duke Lacrosse case.
4
5
6

Ms. Kagan: On this exhibit it states-
Mr. Coughlin: Prosecutors should have some ethics-
Ms. Kagan: Registration number 53905 and then it states
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
attorneys slash agent and it lists agent, correct?

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?
17
Judge McElroy: What was the question?
18
Mr. Coughlin: I am not answering about anything that's not
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
authenticated.
Q: As of October 2007, Mr. Coughlin are you registered as a patent
attorney or a patent agent?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know. And I object to if you're just going on
a website and printing off something on a website and acting like that
is law, it's ridiculous. Your like the rogue prosecutor in the Duke
Lacrosse case, you're out of control, Ms. Kagan.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I move to strike these comments that Mr.
Coughlin is making disparaging my character.
Judge McElroy: The comments will be stricken from the record.
Mr. Coughlin: Don't have the character you have if you don't want
to be compared to the Duke Lacrosse rogue prosecutor or rogue
prosecutors in other instances where getting a promotion is more
important than the truth.
6
7
8
9
10
Q: Mr. Coughlin, on July 13th, 2004 the Committee of Bar

Examiners advised you that it would not recommend your admission
but offered to hold your application in abeyance so the Committee may
evaluate your recovery from alcohol abuse, correct?
11
A: I'm not sure.
12
Q: Let's turn to page Exhibit 37 which is already in evidence, this
13
is a letter dated July 13th, 2004 to Jerome Fishkin from Deborah
14
Murphy Lawson director of moral character determinations first
15
paragraph states I'm writing to inform you the status of your client's
16
application for determination of moral character the Committee of Bar
17
Examiners Committee does not believe it is now in a position to
18
recommend your client's admission to the Supreme Court of California
19
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10 of the rules regulating admission
20
to practice law in California. However the Committee has decided that
21
your client's-
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance. Are we going to take up the

whole day with with Ms. Kagan'sJudge McElroy: it's overruled.
Mr. Coughlin: Cross-direction or whatever?
27
28
Q: The Committee has decided that your client's application will
be held in advance until January 13th, 2005 so the Committee may
evaluate his recovery from alcohol abuse.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: From alcohol abuse? Oh, okay.

Ms. Kagan: Committee requires that your client participateMr. Coughlin: Does is say and whatever the hell else you want to
look at?
Ms. Kagan: May I finish Mr. Coughlin.
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know, can you read?
Judge McElroy: Let her finish.
Ms. Kagan: The Committee requires that your client participate
14
in State Bar of California's lawyer assistance program (LAP) which has
15
been established to provide assistance with mental health and
16
substance abuse issues to members of the legal profession-
17
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry I couldn't hear if you said requires that
18
your client participate? Does it say it requires that he enroll in it for
19
five years and open up the checkbook to us?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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?
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 2-
28
1
2
3
Mr. 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
pursuant to rule 10 section 4 at the bottom its signed Zach Coughlin
7/9/04, correct, this is something that you signed? Page 2 of Exhibit 38?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mr. Coughlin: Let's see, there's a stipulation. The purpose of

reviewing this application for determination of moral character in
order to evaluate his recovery from alcohol abuse, period. I don't see
where it goes on and says plus we'll ask you questions about your
psycho sexual history and we'll just go on with whatever we want
because it's our blank check.
13
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin did you sign the document?
14
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, I don't see where it says I'm enrolling in LAP
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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.
Q: Then on June 30th, 2005 you completed the telephone intake
processMr. Coughlin: And that's a full year later! Isn't it? Because this
23
was signed in 2004, so why did it take a year for them to do their
24
telephone intake?
25
26
27
28
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.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, when you present your side of the
3
4
5
6
caseMr. Coughlin: Am I going to have time, because Ms. Kagan has

hogged everything so far, so?
Judge McElroy: You will.
Q: Mr. Coughlin on June 30th, 2005, you enrolled in LAP you
9
10
11
12
13
completed the telephone intake process, correct?

A: No, I enrolled in LAP prior to that.
Ms. Kagan: Let's look at Exhibit 72 page 26 are you on Exhibit 72
page 26, Mr. Coughlin?
14
15
Ms. Kagan: You take your time and look at it.
16
Mr. Coughlin: Well, thank you, Susan.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q: Page 26 is entitled lawyer assistance program, LAP,

notification of enrollment. It states, this is to serve as notification that
Zachary Coughlin contacted the lawyer assistance program on June
22nd, 2005 and has completed the telephone intake process, correct?
A: I don't know because I had been speaking with them and
23
sending them quarterly reports since early 2004, I believe, so I don't
24
know how this could be accurate. I don't know why they decided to take
25
a year to decide that I had finally completed some arbitrary telephone
26
intake interview.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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
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
paragraph 1, welcome to the Lawyer Assistance Program, LAP. The
LAP evaluation Committee formally accepted you into the program on
August 18th, 2005. The Committee designed an individualized
participationMr. Coughlin: After an extended period of playing hide the ball,
right?
14
Ms. Kagan: The Committee designed and individualized
15
participation agreement that includes recommendations to enhance
16
your recovery-
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Coughlin: Oh, good!

Ms. Kagan: Your case manager will provide a copy of your
agreement for review and signature. Please sign within five business
days and return the agreement to your case manager.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Let the healing begin, huh?
23
Ms. Kagan: And then I just want to get down to paragraph 3, the
24
evaluation Committee determines completion of the program the LAP
25
will acknowledge and verify both successful participation in the
26
program and successful completion of the program. Successful
27
participation is defined as achieving and maintaining sobriety,
28
stability, and full compliance with the terms of the participation
agreement.
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevancy. Where are we going with

this?
Q: Did you receive this letter, Mr. Coughlin?
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor.
A: I received a lot of letters from LAP.
10
11
12
Q: Then on September 6th, 2005 you sign the LAP participation

plan, correct?
13
A: I remember signing things earlier than that.
14
Q: The question was on September 6, 2005, you signed the LAP
15
16
17
18
participation plan, correct?

Mr. Coughlin: Do you have an exhibit I can look at?
Ms. Kagan: Yes, I do, Exhibit 72 pages 12 to 13.
19
Mr. Coughlin: ok yeah that looks like my signature.
20
Q: And this participation plan had two parts. Part A had nine
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
conditionsMr. Coughlin: But, I had already signed one of these plans like
months beforehand.
Judge McElroy: Let her finish the question, Mr. Coughlin.
Q: Part A has nine conditions and Part B has nine conditions,
correct?
28
Mr. Coughlin: Let me review this first. I see were it says you can't
take prescription meds unless it's approved by a physician in
consultation with the program.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ms. Kagan: That is not the question, Mr. Coughlin.

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
11
participating the lawyer assistance program, hereinafter LAP or
12
Program. Then the third sentence is therefore, in cooperation after a
13
cooperative effort with the LAP, I agree to follow the conditions I will.
14
And then it sets forth the conditions, correct? The conditions we just
15
discussed?
16
17
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry can you repeat the question.

Q: You agreed to follow the conditions that are set forth in Part A
and Part B of this exhibit, Mr. Coughlin?
20
Mr. Coughlin: Which exhibit is this?
21
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 72 pages 12 to 13.
22
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor if I need to come back next week I
23
24
25
would say that I won't agree to a telephone testimony by the doctor.

Judge McElroy: Please answer the question.
26
Mr. Coughlin: I am just pointing that out at this point.
27
Judge McElroy: Okay, the courts so notes.
28
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry what was your question, Susan?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q: Did you agree to follow the conditions set forth in Part A and
Part B of this participation plan, correct?
Mr. Coughlin: objection. We are just asking the same question
again and again.
Ms. Kagan: You haven't answered the question.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, we talked about signing it right, Susan?
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin answer the question.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm sorry what was the question?
10
11
12
Q: You agreed to follow the conditions set forth in Part A and Part
B of this exhibit, correct?
13
Mr. Coughlin: Exhibit 72?
14
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
15
Mr. Coughlin: Well, it's signed, right? And, we established that it
16
17
18
was my signature earlier? Right?

Ms. Kagan: That's not the question, please answer the question.
19
Mr. Coughlin: I signed it? So what was your question?
20
Q: Fourth time. You agreed to follow the conditions set forth in
21
22
23
24
Part A and Part B of this exhibit, correct?

A: I signed it, yes?
Q: You were terminated from LAP on April 7th, 2006, correct?
25
Mr. Coughlin: April 7th, you say?
26
Ms. Kagan: Yeah.
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I don't know.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin. Exhibit 6 is a letter dated
April 7th, 2006 to Zachary B. Coughlin from Janis R. Thibault and it
states in anticipation of the report to the Committee of Bar Examiners,
CBX, on February 16, 2006, the LAP evaluation Committee met to
review your participation at that time your participation did not
warrant a favorable recommendation. You were given a period of time
to explore arrangements that might allow you a more favorable
outcome. To date we have not received any information from you but
must report to CBX. The LAP evaluation Committee has determined
10
that you have not successfully complied with their recommendations
11
and appear not to have gained insight regarding your alcohol abuse. In
12
addition your participation in the LAP has been terminated, correct?
13
That's what the letter says?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
21
from the State Bar requesting that you provide a renewed
22
authorization for disclosure and release of information form to the
23
State Bar, correct?
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Is that is that the one where you were making a lot
of threats about it and?
26
Q: Mr. Coughlin that wasn't the question. If you turn to Exhibit 9
27
a letter dated November 21st, 2006 to Zachary Coughlin from Susan I.
28
Kagan. As you know the State Bar is requesting you to provide a
renewed LAP authorization form and fingerprint records report in
connection with the above-referenced matter per your voice mail
message on October 31st, 2006.
4
5
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, hearsay, voice mail, has not been

authenticated or submitted into evidence.
Ms. Kagan: I understand you're refusing to provide these items
8
9
absent further explanation. To this end I've attempted to contact you
10
on several occasions to discuss the matter to no avail. If the requested
11
items are not received by this office by close of business on December 1 st,
12
2006-
13
Mr. Coughlin: Right, so I gave you another one right, Susan?
14
Ms. Kagan: But you didn't give me another one until April 20 th,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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.
22
Ms. Kagan: Two weeks prior to trial?
23
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure of the day.
24
Ms. Kagan: Even though on January 3rd, 2007 another letter was
25
26
27
sent to you requesting a renewed authorization.

Mr. Coughlin: I can't confirm that.
28
Ms. Kagan: That's Exhibit 10, Mr. Coughlin. Exhibit 10 dated
January 3rd, 2007 to Mr. Coughlin and encloses the a LAP authorization
form. Please sign and date the form returned to me by close of business
on January 16th, 2007. Please contact me if you have any questions.
5
6
7
8
9
Mr. Coughlin: What is your question?

Q: Did you receive this letter, Mr. Coughlin?
A: I'm not sure, did you send it by certified mail or get a
signature?
10
Judge McElroy: It's not your turn to ask questions.
11
Q: Mr. Coughlin, at your deposition on March 2nd, 2007, you refused
12
13
14
15
16
to provide an authorization form to the State Bar, correct?

Mr. Coughlin: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Q: You were asked to provide an authorization form at your
deposition on March 2nd, 2007, correct?
17
Mr. Coughlin: An authorization form for what?
18
Ms. Kagan: For LAP.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Is that right? I believe that happened? Yeah, I
believe we talked about how the fact that your authorization form had
lapsed and that was inconvenient for you to get another one. Which
deposition was this?
5
6
7
Ms. Kagan: The first one.

Mr. Coughlin: Where?
Ms. Kagan: Reno.
Mr. Coughlin: Reno, where?
10
11
12
13

Q: Let's see, Mr. Coughlin, you were deposed on March 2 nd, 2007,
correct?
14
Mr. Coughlin: By whom?
15
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I am warning you. You are not to
16
be asking questions. Right now you are being subjected to answer
17
questions.
18
19
20
21
Q: You were deposed on March 2nd, 2007 in relation to this matter?

A: I'm not sure.
Q: Let's turn to Exhibit 57, Your Honor, it is a condensed
22
transcript of the deposition of Zachary Coughlin, March 2 nd, 2007, Reno,
23
Nevawta.
24
25
26
Judge McElroy: Does this refresh your memory.

Mr. Coughlin: I don't know where Nevawta, I don't know what
that is. What is Nevawta?
27
28
1
2
3
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.
6
7
8
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
16
Judge McElroy: At this point, the issue is good moral character.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Right, but without equal protection, right?
18
Q: Page 10 of the deposition, Mr. Coughlin, starting with line 25:
19
question what I'd like to do is turn back to the last going on to page 11
20
line one page of Exhibit 1 and in second paragraph of that page about
21
five lines from the bottom this is actually discuss the arrest that took
22
place in October of 2001 outside of a movie theater in Nevada. The
23
sentence goes on to say I was charged with three misdemeanors:
24
resisting arrest, evading a police officer, and obstructing a police
25
officer. Can you go into a little detail about the actual arrest answer no
26
question no you can't go into detail or do you remember the arrest
27
answer well I'm going to object to that question what's your basis
28
answer well given the language and the other sections of this
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-
4
5
6
7
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
10
answer the question answer uh-huh question unless you refuse to
11
answer the question and then we can have the question certified and
12
take it to the court and see whether or not you're going to be ordered to
13
answer the question. This is starting on page 12.
14
15
16
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
17
the deposition transcript. If you recalled your testimony we wouldn't
18
have to read the deposition transcript. Since you can't recall anything
19
that you've ever done this is why it's taking so long. Let's go ahead.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Q: Answer okay question is that what you want to do answer yes

questions so let's certify the question just to set the record straight is it
true that you are now refusing to answer any questions regarding your
arrest of October 2001?
Mr. Coughlin: Oh, okay, your question is did I refuse to answer
questions about the arrest? Yeah.
28
Mr. Coughlin: Well, actually, I didn't refuse, I objected based on
1
2
the fact that your own application says that those arrests that don't
lead to conviction are not-
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin isn't it true that you refused-
5
6
7
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
8
9
10
11
discuss your law school academic dishonesty investigation isn't that

true?
A: Well that's a similar instance where I asserted that your own
12
application which is what I understand Equal Protection Clause to
13
mean is is that that has to be applied to everybody the same way and-
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ms. Kagan: Mr. Coughlin there'sMr. Coughlin: I'm not finished with my answer Ms. KaganJudge McElroy: Give your explanation. You admit that you
refusedMr. Coughlin: no I'm saying I asserted that it was an improper
20
question given that the academic dishonesty investigation did not lead
21
to any according to the language of your own California moral
22
character application didn't lead to any censure yada, yada, yada-
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Mr. Coughlin, the question was you refused to testify about the
academic dishonesty investigation, correct?
A: I asserted a privilege.
Q: At your deposition on March 2nd, 2007 you refused to answer
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
1
2
about alcohol during that.
Q: Page 29.
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: You asked me question after question about AA

and-
Judge McElroy: Okay, you answered the question, please.
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
10
alcoholic is question do you not understand what an alcoholic is answer
11
I don't understand what you understand an alcoholic is question what
12
do you understand alcohol to be answer I'm not sure question isn't it
13
true that you actually attend Alcoholics Anonymous answer I'm going
14
to object to that question what's the basis for your objection answer
15
privacy grounds and the fact that the second word in that is
16
anonymous. Did you refuse to answer questions, Mr. Coughlin.
17
Regarding that?
18
19
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: Are you asking me whether I was refusing to

answer questions when I was in this deposition or right now?
Ms. Kagan: Regarding that the deposition.
Mr. Coughlin: At the deposition? No, I don't believe, so, we talked
23
about alcohol for a long, long time. You asked me this and that the
24
other and talked about you know me going to AA meeting since I was
25
like three years old and all sorts of stuff like that so.
26
Q: Page 31, line 12 question how long you been attending AA
27
answer I object to that on privacy grounds but I will go ahead and
28
answer it, preserving the objection. I've been, I was taken to AA
meetings as a child, so. Question why was that answer I don't know
question you're handing me back the exhibit you don't know why you're
taken to a meetings as a child answer no question why did you include
that information in your update for moral character application to me-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, what page are you on?

Ms. Kagan: 31. answer I'm not sure question are you currently
attending AA meetings answer I object to that on privacy grounds but
question starting at page 32 did you attend all the meetings that are
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
15
disgust for the Fourth Amendment and any privacy rights individuals
16
in this country might have that might conflict with your making
17
money as a prosecutor?
18
Q: Skipping down to line 20 of the same page-
19
Mr. Coughlin: No? No question? Just going to read to us?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: When is the last time you had an alcoholic beverage
answer I'm not sure and I'll objected on privacy grounds as well
question starting on page 33 if you don't want the State Bar to know
about your attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous or anything about
your relationship with alcohol why did you include this information in
your application update answer I'm going to object to that question and
the way it is phrased. I believe its leading and you're saying if I don't
want the State Bar and that's not something I said that's something you
just said question excuse me strike that Ill rephrase my question-
Mr. Coughlin: Is there a question in this or you just reading to us?
Judge McElroy: She is reading the deposition transcript into the
record.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: Is she going to read the whole thing into the record
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.
Judge McElroy: Or if you cannot recall.
Mr. Coughlin: What have I not recalled about this question?
14
Judge McElroy: Please proceed with reading what-
15
Mr. Coughlin: If you can tell me, do you have a question?
16
Ms. Kagan: question on a page 33 starting with line 10 is it true
17
that you're refusing to testify about your relationship with alcohol and
18
your relationship with Alcoholics Anonymous answer no questions so
19
when did you first start going to Alcoholics Anonymous answer I'm not
20
sure can you define going question when did you first start attending
21
meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous answer-
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: Can I use the restroom, Your Honor? I really need
to use the restroom.
25
Judge McElroy: We will wait until 11:15. Go ahead.
26
Ms. Kagan: Answer, I can remember being in a meeting when I
27
was three years old so question what about in the last five years have
28
you been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for the last five
years answer I'm not sure can you just define attending for five years?
Does that mean once in five years or a hundred times in five years
continued on page 34 question at any any any at all did you ever go to
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the last five years answer, I'll object
to that on privacy grounds but go ahead and answer it yes I have ok
skipping down to line 20 is one of the reasons question is one of the
reasons also get you have a problem with alcohol answer object to that
question what's your objection answer objection would be privacy and it
would be objecting under ADA, it would be vagueness of the question, I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
don't understand what you mean by a problem with alcohol.

Judge McElroy: Okay, I think that's enough in terms of this field
of questioning.
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.
18
Judge McElroy: I'll give you five minutes.
19
Judge McElroy: Back on the record.
20
21
22
23
Q: At your deposition on March 2nd, 2007, Mr. Coughlin is it true

that you couldn't tell me whether or not you recognized or had the
email address of zanzibar2@hotmail.com?
24
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not gonna answer that.
25
Q: You couldn't tell me whether or not you drafted emails to Uni-
26
27
28
shippers which isMr. Coughlin: And I am not going to answer that, either. Am I
allowed to do that?
Judge McElroy: You can do whatever you want to do.
Mr. Coughlin: Because earlier I couldn't just not answer thing.
3
4
5
6
7
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
those. You can't just say no I'm not gonna answer and have it reflect on
your candor. You said, your order was that you have to answer that.
10
Judge McElroy: This is moral character hearing and the issue is
11
your candor, I'm letting the record speaks for itself. What's the next
12
question.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: But earlier you weren't, right?

Q: Mr. Coughlin, your deposition was taken again on April 26 2007
correct?
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,
correct?
25
Mr. Coughlin: what's your question?
26
Q: You attended a deposition, testified at a deposition on April
27
28
26th, 2007?
A: In Kaylaphone-ya, Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q: At that time well you came to the deposition pursuant to a

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?
19
Judge McElroy: I'm going to exercise my right to to control the
20
courtroom and at this point. Mr. Coughlin has said that he cannot,
21
he's not sure of the date of his last sobriety, he's said it four or five
22
times. I don't think we need to go into this area anymore. So, I'm
23
going to ask that we move on to another area. He's not sure whether
24
he had alcohol in the last four years. He's not sure whether he had it
25
in 2005-2006. He doesn't know his sobriety date, the court knows it. So
26
let's go on to another line of questioning.
27
28
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, if I may, this goes to Mr. Coughlin's

cooperation in this matter, not necessarily what his answers were-
Mr. Coughlin: I believe the judge has ruled.
Judge McElroy: The record has spoken in terms of his cooperation.
3
4
5
Ms. Kagan: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Coughlin, are you employed
currently?
Mr. Coughlin: I'm going to object to that. That's not something I
6
7
feel is your business, Susan.
Judge McElroy: And it is overruled.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so does that mean I have to answer it?
10
Judge McElroy: Yes, you do have to answer it.
11
Mr. Coughlin: But, earlier I could say no I'm not going to answer
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
that?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, the objection, I've overruled, your
objection.
Mr. Coughlin: That's something I keep private.
Q: Have you had any employment between February 15th, 2007 and
today?
20
Mr. Coughlin: That is something I keep private.
21
Q: do you have any employment in 2006?
22
23
24
25
26
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?
27
Q: You testified that you worked at a place called West
28
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?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A: If that's what it says in the deposition then I wouldn't dispute

that.
Q: And also in 2006, you worked at Albertson's for approximately
two months as a cashier. You were terminated from that position
because you were told that the company didn't feel you were cut out for
that type of workMr. Coughlin: Objection, are we going to go through when I
worked for a coffee cart when I was in seventh grade, too?
12
Judge McElroy: Objection is overruled.
13
Q: Did you testify about that at your deposition, Mr. Coughlin?
14
15
Mr. Coughlin: You tell me.
16
Q: Would you like me to read it onto the record, Mr. Coughlin?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Sure. Maybe if you could give us an idea where
18
you're going with this it would kinda, you know?
19
Judge McElroy: What pages?
20
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 57 page 73 actually it starts with page 73 line
21
1 answer I was a cashier question where answer Albertson's question
22
and where was that answer Reno, Novato-
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Where's that?

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
out for this type of work.
6
7
8
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: That's important how?

Q: In 2005, Mr. Coughlin you testified at your deposition that you
were employed at Men's Wearhouse for a week and your duties were
selling suits correct?
11
A: I have a vague recollection.
12
Q: During that same year you were employed at Macy's for
13
14
15
16
17
approximately four months were you sold suits.

Q: And you were let go because you might have been told it was
not a good fit.
18
19
20
Mr. Coughlin: Are we going to talk about me working at a yogurt
21
stand when I was in third grade, too? How far back we gonna go, is what
22
I want to know?
23
24
25
Judge McElroy: As far back as the prosecutor wants to go.

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
Q: Mr. Coughlin, and during that same year you were employed at
1
2
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?
6
7
8
9
Mr. Coughlin: I'm going to object to this because I signed a

severance agreement which I think might bind me from speaking on
this?
10
Q: Yet, you testified about it at your deposition.
11
Mr. Coughlin: I think I mentioned that very same confidential
12
severance agreement at my deposition, which I'll point out, Hale Lane
13
didn't seem to follow but I'm a man of the law, so I'll go ahead and try to
14
follow that agreement.
15
16
17
18
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 57, page 78.

Mr. Coughlin: I think you have that agreement so if you can read
it and tell me where it says I can comment on this then fine but.
19
Judge McElroy: So it's page 78?
20
Ms. Kagan: Line 5, question why did you leave that employment
21
answer I was told I'm not sure questions did you voluntarily leave
22
that employment answer I'm not sure question were you fired answer
23
I'm not sure question what was the reason that you were provided
24
and so I remember something about it not being a good fit-
25
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevancy. Were are we going with this?
26
What's the point that admitting this?
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Can I just aimlessly bring up things too for hours
on end? If you had something worthwhile I don't think you would need
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?
9
10
11
12
13
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
14
content of your emails to Professor Tratos answer can you be more
15
specific questions do you believe I would like you to describe what you
16
would characterize your email to Professor Tratos to be answer I don't
17
know a learning experience question I'm specifically asking about the
18
contents of your emails would you characterize them as a professional
19
answer I'm not sure I don't know quite what you mean by professional
20
question-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Q: When you're reading through these emails now what is your

opinion of your emails to Professor Tratos answer something I learned
from question and describe that what do you mean you learn from
answer just I think I learned that if you're accused of doing something
that you need to have respect for the process regardless of whether you
think that you should be accused and that I need to choose my words a
lot more carefully I was 24 when this was going on question would you
handle this differently today answer yes I believe I would question how
so answer they would be a lot shorter question the emails answer yeah.
4
5
6
7
8
9
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.
10
Mr. Coughlin: And you said that's all I said, right?
11
Judge McElroy: What's next question?
12
Mr. Coughlin: It's kind of leaving out a few things. And that's
13
why I say a rogue prosecutor like the Duke Lacrosse case because
14
there's just a reckless disregard for my rights-
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mr. Coughlin: Nifong was the guy's name. They are disbarring
him now.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I would ask that you not speak
until you're spoken to.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, I don't think I have any questions at this
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I would like to call Susan Kagan to

the stand.
Judge McElroy: You are not going to be allowed to do that.
Mr. Coughlin: It goes to several pertinent matters in the case,
Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: you're not allowed to call her and you will not be
able to call her, ok.
Mr. Coughlin: Even if it speaks on when I reported things and-
10
Judge McElroy: Yes, okay, so who are the two witnesses?
11
Ms. Kagan: Lynn Thingvold, she's a paralegal with our office and
12
13
14
15
16
17
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
too.
Ms. Kagan: Thingvold would be testifying about the photos that
18
are in Exhibit 73 in the entire Exhibit 73 inclusive of the photos and
19
her correspondence with Nevada DMV and Mr. Stevens would be
20
testifying about the Exhibit 74 which is the patent bar information
21
and also the DMV records and his participation in that.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Whoa, scintillating stuff, really.

Judge McElroy: Can you call them now?
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?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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
me he was available all week so I'm assuming that that means that he's
available to come in person.
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
even testify today at four.
18
Judge McElroy: Ok we can go off the record.
19
Mr. Coughlin: He will need to be here, right? Not on the phone?
20
21
22
We're not talking about on the phone?

Judge McElroy: He's no longer-
23
(Record abruptly cuts off)
24
Judge McElroy: And I can read what the court is-
25
26
27
28

Judge McElroy: ok back on the record in the matter Zachary
Coughlin. We are going over the records that have been admitted into
evidence the court has admitted only one through six then it has been
admitted page 12 of 7, page 8.
Mr. Coughlin: Page 12 of 7?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: That's the only part of Exhibit 7 that's been

admitted. Exhibit 8 through 12 admitted. Exhibit 15 pages 29 and 63
have been admitted. Exhibit seventeen admitted, Exhibit 19 admitted,
Exhibit 20 admitted, Exhibit 21 admitted, Exhibit 24-25 admitted,
Exhibit 29 admitted, Exhibit 31, 32 admitted, Exhibit 37, and 38, 1
through 30 admitted.
11
Court Personnel: I have that as Exhibit 39, Your Honor.
12
Judge McElroy: Okay maybe that's it that ok Exhibit 38 is
13
admitted and in terms of Exhibit 39 pages 1 through 30 are admitted.
14
Exhibit 40 and 41 admitted, Exhibit 44 admitted, Exhibit 47 admitted,
15
Exhibit 49 admitted, Exhibit 53 admitted, Exhibit 50 is admitted.
16
17
Ms. Kagan: I don't have that as admitted. That's alright, that's

also contained in Exhibit 72 though.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Judge McElroy: Okay, so that is not admitted. I believe it's part of

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
was admitted, Exhibit 57 only the pages that have been referred to in
testimony, pages 10 line 25, page 11 see page 11, lines 1 through 25, page
12.
26
Mr. Coughlin: And this is on the deposition?
27
Judge McElroy: Yes.
28
Mr. Coughlin: And we're referring to it by the depositions pages
1
2
not the bate stamps?
Judge McElroy: Yes. Page 12 lines 1 through 9, then we have page
29 line 7 through 24, page 31, line 10 through 25, page 32 and page 34,
page 78 lines 5 through 13, page 73 lines 14 through 23, page 60 line's 21
to 25 and page 61 the entire page, those are the ones it's going to be so
good ok those are admitted. 58 in its entirety is admitted 59 is admitted
60
9
10
11
12
is judicially noticed, Exhibit 61 is admitted, Exhibit 69 admitted,

Exhibit 62 and 63 are judicially noticed 65, 66, 67, and 68 are judicially
noticed, 69 is admitted, 70 that's the deposition, right?
13
Ms. Kagan: Yes.
14
Judge McElroy: what pages? I don't have the pages that were
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, there was something regarding the
23
deposition transcripts from the March 2007 deposition regarding and oh
24
maybe I just read into the record regarding the fact that Mr. Coughlin
25
was living alone in the unlawful detainer.
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: yeah but I don't know what pages, do you have the
pages?
Ms. Kagan: Page 108. I think lines 16 to 22.
Judge McElroy: Okay, page 108, lines 16 through 22 are admitted.
Ms. Kagan: as well as on page 101 that was regarding his
knowledge of the lawsuit the unlawful detainer, I believe it started
line 6 and went through line 13.
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: ok page 101 line 6 to 13. so that's fine that's all we
have right?
Ms. Kagan: that's what I believe to be correct.
Judge McElroy: okay so why don't we go off the record.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: ok so this is the matter of Zachary Coughlin and

we're back on the record before we took a recess the State Bar indicated
that they were going to have two witnesses testify in terms of
authenticating some documents and one is regarding the photographs
before we put in testimony about the photographs do you have the
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
20
21
photographs however they are in Nevada and while they did promise to
22
come they never returned the subpoena and then stopped returning our
23
calls.
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: Ok so I don't think then you have the evidence in

terms of authenticating the photographs.
Mr. Coughlin: In regard to that Your Honor can any testimony
related to those photographs be stricken?
Judge McElroy: And they will be stricken.
Mr. Coughlin: okay thank you.
Judge McElroy: Any evidence relating to the photographs. In
terms of the Exhibit 74 the patent agent exhibit here's the problem
with that Mr. Coughlin has always been listed as an agent and now he
became an attorney in Nevada and the issue really is whether he had to
do some process to notify the patent / people that he's an attorney if he
has to do that then it appears to be still an agent so I don't see the
significance of agent of that whole agent testimony.
9
10
11
12
Ms. Kagan: Well he did put into his Exhibit 3 which is the update
that since he has been barred in Nevada that makes him an attorney
with the patent bar, Exhibit 3 page 4.
13
Judge McElroy: He says on page 4 that he is listed as an agent,
14
though upon becoming an attorney that I may now be classified as a
15
patent attorney.
Ms. Kagan: Right, says he is licensed as a patent agent since May
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2003.
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
attorney.
24
Judge McElroy: Please.
25
Ms. Kagan: It appears that he is claiming to be a patent attorney.
26
Though upon becoming an attorney, that may now be classified as a
27
patent attorney.
28
Judge McElroy: Right, I just don't see the significance of this at
1
2
all.
Ms. Kagan: The, the fact that he-
Mr. Coughlin: And this what you led with!
5
6
Ms. Kagan: The fact that he has only listed as an agent and he has
been listed as an agent since being licensed in 2003 but now claims to be
an attorney?
Judge McElroy: unless you can have someone come in and say that
9
10
in order to become that once he becomes that once he becomes an agent
11
and once he becomes an attorney he's automatically now a patent
12
attorney then I don't see the significance of it.
13
Ms. Kagan: Well, Your Honor, I would say that that's his burden
14
to prove that he's now a patent attorney because he claims to be a
15
patent attorney.
16
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: He says may now be. He doesn't, I mean, its so

nebulous, I just don't see the significance of it at all in terms of this
case.
20
Mr. Coughlin: and we had a deposition!
21
Judge McElroy: please.
22
Ms. Kagan: Well, Your Honor, there are two different distinctions
23
with the U.S. Patent Office, there's either you're registered as an agent
24
or your registered as an attorney.
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: And its clear the news registered as an agent.

Ms. Kagan: Right, and, and, but from this document itself it shows
that he is holding, well claims to be an-
Judge 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.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ms. Kagan: Well, uh.

Judge McElroy: He's listed as an agent, he's agreed that he's listed
as an agent I don't know why you need any more evidence to come in
and say is listed as an agent. He is listed as an agent.
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
12
listed of his at this point. I don't know whether you become one
13
automatically or if there's some process you need to report that to. But,
14
simply printing off, I believe her exhibit is simply printing off
15
something off the internet she found when she did something like a
16
Google search for something I just don't think that that really rises to
17
the level of.
18
Judge McElroy: Well, it depends, she can have someone come in
19
and testify and then I have to look at it under evidence code section
20
5052 but the point is, I'm saying, I don't know what the point of it is I
21
just don't see the point. He was listed as an agent he says he's listed as
22
an agent he sends you an updated saying now that I've become an
23
attorney in Nevada I maybe a patent attorney? Who knows? Who
24
cares? I mean, I just don't see how its.
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: Everything has been treated this way! Everything's

been twisted like this!
28
1
2
3
4
5
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.
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
9
10
11
12
13
USPTO website and gives you his number! He's an agent. I just don't.
Mr. Coughlin: We have the certificate as well Your Honor.
Judge McElroy: I just don't see why this is being belabored. He's a
licensed or an agent says his number 53905.
14
Ms. Kagan: I-
15
Judge McElroy: Haha! Okay?
16
17
18
19
Ms. Kagan: And he just said right now he doesn't even know what
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
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Just be a overly technical, I'm not sure I'm an

agent.
Judge McElroy: Whatever.
Mr. Coughlin: I might be an attorney.
Judge McElroy: Okay, let's put on your evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: Because she might come back with some line about
3
4
5
6
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?
A: Yes at the State Bar of California.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: Excuse me Your Honor can just make an objection.

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.
Judge McElroy: We already struck them.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, I move for sanctions against her for
presenting them.
19
M: Denied. Next question.
20
Q: Mr. Stevens you're currently employed at the State Bar and
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.
27
28
1
2
Q: Did you happen to work on the matter of this moral character

case of Zachary Coughlin?
A: Yes.
Q: and as part of your work on this matter did you contact the
5
6
7
8
9
Department of Motor Vehicles for Nevada?

A: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance. I don't see how this is any
more relevant than the patent agent stuff.
10
11
Q: Do you recall why you contacted the DMV of Nevada.
12
13
A: To obtain the applicants driving record.
14
Q: How did you make contact with the DMV.
15
A: I wrote a letter.
16
Q: Your Honor may I approach?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Judge McElroy: Yes.

Q: Please let the record reflect I'm handing a copy of what's been
marked as Exhibit 76 to applicant.
Mr. Coughlin: Is this the first time getting this exhibit?
Judge McElroy: Apparently.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just being given this now on the third day trial?
I object to entering this exhibit.
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: has it been authenticated?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I've made my ruling. Please let her
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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
facsimile transmission dated September 14 2006 to Laura Nevada DMV
from Bill Stevens followed by on page 2 a letter dated September 14,
2006 to Nevada DMV from William D Stevens. Mr. Stevens do you
recognize this exhibit.
A: Yes, I wrote this letter I signed it, attached my business card is
13
copied on the front page of the facts and the authorization and release
14
that's attached to that I would have attached to it to show the
15
applicants consent to have these records released if necessary.
16
Q: What do you do with this letter once you wrote it?
17
A: I had my paralegal fax it or our paralegal fax it to the Nevada
18
19
20
21
Department of Motor Vehicles.

Q: And is this the letter that you just testified that you sent to the
Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles?
22
A: yes it is.
23
Q: did you ever receive a response to this letter?
24
A: yes I did.
25
26
27
Q: Your Honor may I approach.

Judge McElroy: yes.
28
1
2
3
4
5
Ms. Kagan: Let the record reflect I'm handing the applicant
Exhibit 77.
Mr. Coughlin: I object Your Honor I haven't seen this exhibit.
Judge McElroy: I have to look at it myself.
Ms. Kagan: I am handing a copy to the Court, the original to the
Court Administrator, and a copy to the witness. Exhibit 77 is a three-
page exhibit. On the first page is entitled DMV, Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles central services and Records Division. It's dated
10
September 18, 2006 attention William Stevens from Laura. Do you
11
recognize this exhibit Mr. Stevens?
12
A: yes I do.
13
Q: and how do you recognize it because I'm the one who received
14
15
16
17
18
19
the fax in our office.

Mr. Coughlin: Objection, relevance. But let me just say Your
Honor I say that because I think if if there's something Ms. Kagan is
trying to prove with this perhaps I could just admit and we could not
spend an hour having you know each and every little.
20
Judge McElroy: The time for admitting was two weeks ago.
21
Mr. Coughlin: what if we're talking about getting a speeding
22
ticket six years ago and that's the whole reason for bringing Mr.
23
Stevens here and sitting here for taking up an hour.
24
25
26
27
28
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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.
Judge McElroy: why don't you look at Exhibit 64.
Mr. Coughlin: I might just say I can't stipulate to exhibits that I
haven't been given.
Judge McElroy: 64 you were given.
Mr. Coughlin: But, I wasn't getting a lot of exhibits right?
Judge McElroy: okay 64, look at it. If you want more details to
come out, then don't stipulate.
14
Mr. Coughlin: Even if all this-
15
Judge McElroy: Will you stipulate or not?
16
Mr. Coughlin: No. But even if all this can be proven true, does
17
that does that justify the time?
Judge McElroy: yes.
18
Mr. Coughlin: The time taken to prove if I have a speeding ticket?
19
Judge McElroy: yes.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?
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
28
program, the combative Sipowicz like NYPD Blue type behavior that
the State Bar has exhibited.
3
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin are you ready to stipulate to

Exhibit 64 coming into evidence.
Mr. Coughlin: No.
Judge McElroy: ok let's proceed.
Ms. Kagan: I request that Exhibit 76 be moved into evidence.
Judge McElroy: it is.
10
11
Mr. Coughlin: I object Your Honor.
12
Judge McElroy: Its admitted into evidence.
13
Ms. Kagan: Your honor I requests that Exhibit 77 be moved into
14
15
16
17
18
evidence.
Judge McElroy: Its admitted.
Mr. Coughlin: I object.
Q: Did you perform an internet search regarding his registration
19
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and what was the results of
20
that investigation.
21
A: His name showed up as being registered with them it provided
22
a one-page or one screen notation as to him I printed it out and attached
23
it to a memo.
24
25
26
27
28
Q: Can you please turn in the witness binder to Exhibit 74, a twopage 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?
3
4
5
6
7
A: my initials appear on the front page of the memo and I recall

having printed page two.
Ms. Kagan: I request Exhibit 74 be moved into evidence any
objection.
Mr. Coughlin: I object as its an internet print out hearsay.
Judge McElroy: Overruled. You can cross-examine if you have an
10
issue in terms of whether it's unreliable or not, but at this point,
11
overruled.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: No further questions.

By Mr. Coughlin:
Mr. Coughlin: Good afternoon Mr. Stevens how are you? Mr.
Stevens, what would you say the point of your testimony was today?
Q: Mr. Stevens what did you understand you were coming here to
testify about today.
Judge McElroy: Ill let him an answer that question in terms of
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?
A: They were included in that yes.
Q: Were there other documents included of note?
3
4
5
6
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
10
was authenticating certain documents the DMV ones which are 77
11
and 76 and then 74 the US patent trademark office memo and print
12
out do we?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin it is your case.

Mr. Coughlin: I am just trying to understand, we had a discussion
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
20
moot? The patent agent attorney distinction is that moot? Or it seemed
21
like you made a ruling on that earlier.
22
23
Judge McElroy: I didn't make a ruling on that.
24
Mr. Coughlin: you made some comment?
25
Judge McElroy: I made some comment on it and the State Bar
26
27
28
decided to put that in the trial.

Mr. Coughlin: to persist in presenting that evidence despite your
comment.
Judge McElroy: yes. What's the next question.
Q: Mr. Stevens, do you know whether I am a patent agent or
3
4
5
attorney?
A: No.
Q: you are an investigator?
A: Yes.
Q: were you not able to deduce that?
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: go ahead and let it in if you can.
12
A: I don't recall what the question was.
13
Q: Were you able to deduce with your investigation skills
14
15
16
whether or not I'm a patent attorney?

A: yes.
17
Q: And what was the conclusion.
18
A: The conclusion I reached was on looking at the data available
19
20
21
22
23
that you are an agent.

Q: and that data consisted of a printout you found after doing a
Google search or something similar?
A: Yes.
24
Q: ok did you call the patent office and ask them?
25
A: No.
26
27
28
Q: did you make any direct contact with something you could
interact with besides I a Google search?
A: interact?
Q: like ask a question, receive an answer.
A: No.
3
4
Q: why didn't you do that? Isn't it part of-
Judge McElroy: Let him answer.
A: I don't know if I can answer why I didn't do something.
Judge McElroy: there's his answer what's next question?
8
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: instead of saying why you didn't do something, tell

me why you did choose not to call.
11
Ms. Kagan: objections asked and answered.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: okay so someone can say I didn't understand why I
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
didn't do something.
Judge McElroy: Ask the next question.
Mr. Coughlin: because I'm going to remember that one. I didn't
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?
A: What was produced in Exhibit 77.
24
Q: Can you tell me the gist of that.
25
A: No.
26
27
28
Q: You can't tell me the gist of it?

A: No.
Q: Can you tell me did you get paid for working on this?
3
4
5
6

Mr. Coughlin: Am I not able to ask him any questions about his
compensation?
Judge McElroy: No.
Mr. Coughlin: so if he was paid $500,000 for this I wouldn't be able
9
10
11
12
13
14
to ask him?
Judge McElroy: that's correct. I've made my ruling. What's the
next question.
Mr. Coughlin: can you tell me does that DMV printout say I got a
speeding ticket or?
15
Ms. Kagan: Objection, beyond the scope of direct.
16
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let him ask the question.
17
18
19
20
A: Can you repeat the question?

Mr. Coughlin: Sure, Mr. Stevens I will repeated it. Does that
DMV printout say I got a speeding ticket?
21
A: I don't know.
22
Q: would you mind considering that? It was your investigation so
23
I'm just trying to you know get it straight from the guy who got paid
24
for doing it, you know?
25
26
27
28

Mr. Coughlin: Can you tell me did I get a speeding ticket?
Judge McElroy: sustained, it has been asked and answered.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: Can you tell me what the answer was?
Judge McElroy: He said he didn't know?
Mr. Coughlin: you don't know if I got a speeding ticket? Can you
give me your recollections about what you do know about me and this
case and your involvement in it.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ms. Kagan: Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope of direct.

Judge McElroy: Its very broad and vague and I am going to
sustain it on that. Next question.
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, if you can provide me with any
direction as to what's important here?
15
Judge McElroy: I am not your lawyer.
16
Mr. Coughlin: okay, but earlier you said what were what we're
17
really looking at is whether or not you reported this thing accurately
18
right?
19
20
21
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.
22
Mr. Coughlin: In Nevada.
23
Judge McElroy: In Nevada. A lawyer nonetheless, so you need to
24
25
26
27
proceed like a lawyer.

Mr. Coughlin: so I'm a lawyer in one state but not in this one?
Judge McElroy: apparently.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Stevens did you tell anyone during the course
of your investigation any information about me?
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Stevens did you tell anyone that you thought or
someone else thought I was an alcoholic during the course of your
investigation?
9
10
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and beyond the scope of direct.

Judge McElroy: I am going to let him ask the question. I know it's
11
beyond the scope of direct but he can put him on his own witness and
12
this is to save time what's the question did you tell anyone in the course
13
of your investigation or otherwise anything related to me that
14
indicates that you think or someone else thinks that I'm an alcoholic?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A: I would like to answer fully keeping in mind that you provided

us with an authorization and certain details about your personal life I
believe armed with that authorization, I did question the people to
which you referred us about the subject matters of your applicationMr. Coughlin: and those people would be in please continue I don't
mean to interrupt here.
A: that's my that's my answer that's really what did you say to
23
them whatever conversations I had with them I recorded in memos that
24
can speak for themselves. I don't recall the exact-
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I don't have the memos Mr. Stevens so perhaps you
could speak for them.
A: generally?
Mr. Coughlin: sure. Well, how about tailored to what I asked you
1
2
originally?
A: I spoke with your father and we discussed his participation in
Nevada's version for physicians of what we call The Other Bar and he
volunteered some information about you. I spoke with Mr. Torson-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mr. Coughlin: we're talking about what you volunteered about me

sir.
A: 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?
A: I can't say that I didn't it's a question I would ask probably.
Mr. Coughlin: okay we're there any were there any steps you took
to maintain my confidentiality?
17
A: yes.
18
Mr. Coughlin: what was that?
19
A: within the confines of the general confidentiality of a moral
20
character investigation I proceeded with the authorization you gave us
21
to LAP and to the State Bar in general and asked only those questions
22
of such people that could answer them with the knowledge of the
23
release.
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: And what people did you contact?
26
A: all of them?
27
Mr. Coughlin: yes, unless there was just a whole big giant list of
28
people but-
Judge McElroy: please let him answer the question.
A: I contacted your father Dr. Timothy Coughlin, I believe is his
name, your character witness Tony Torson, witnesses referenced in the
applications such as Mr. Tratos, Ms. Smith Mr. Staheli, the Nevada Bar
Association the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles the California
Department of Motor Vehicles the Office of General Counsel with the
State Bar, Bar Examiners of the State Bar. I don't know if thats an
exhaustive list but those are some of the people I contacted.
9
10
11
12
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
13
beyond the scope of direct, if Mr. Coughlin wants to call Mr. Stevens he
14
needs to subpoena Mr. Stevens.
15
16
17
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
18
you can call him as your witness why don't you call him as your
19
witness?
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: ok, should I do that after the cross-examination or?

Judge McElroy: sure. But, I can advise you that this witness is not
23
helpful to you and the more you go into it, the more detail that wasn't
24
ever even presented is now being presented. You have opened this case
25
wide open.
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: But not so far that I can't go beyond what was in
direct?
28
1
2
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?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
investigation that would be exculpating or tend to prove my character
character?
A: 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 orJudge McElroy: This is beyond the scope of direct.
Mr. Coughlin: Well, now, wait. Direct was about proving my
character, right?
19
Judge McElroy: No, it was about authentication of documents.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Which was for the purpose of?
21
22
23
24
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, I'm not going to argue with you
anymore. I told you it's beyond the scope of direct. I've given you a lot of
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
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.
10
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, Your Honor. I'd agree with you and I have no
11
more questions. Thank You Mr. Stevens. Can I call Mr. Stevens
12
directly, then?
13
14
15
16
17
18
Judge McElroy: sure he's here you can call him as your witness
and you're gonna have to proceed with no leading questions.
By Mr. Coughlin:
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Stevens, did you find any exculpating type
material in your investigation?
19
20
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let him ask that.
21
22
23
24
Mr. Coughlin: How could he have answered if you objected to it

and the judge ruled? Judge McElroy: I mean if he wants to open it
wide open, fine?
25
Q: did you find any material that would tend to hurt your case?
26
A: no.
27
28
Q: No? So, was your communication with Mr. Torson such that
would be material that would tend to hurt your case?
A: no.
Q: And why is that?
3
4
A: I don't have a case.
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
8
9
tend to be something that would be exculpating?

A: again, we're back to exculpating, again. You asked me if it
10
would help or hurt our case. My case is to investigate your moral
11
character. It's, I believe, neutral in that regard.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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?
Judge McElroy: Remember, no editorializing. Ask a question.
Q: she's got a side, right? She's got an agenda that she's putting
forth and you're getting paid by her or her employersMs. Kagan: Objection. And I'm going to sustain the objection this
20
question is going nowhere. Q: Can you tell me what Mr. Torson told you
21
or provided you with?
22
23
24
25
A: I can summarize, generally, what he said.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, please do.
A: He said no had known you nine months. He met you in an
26
Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, that you could be counted on if asked
27
to chair the appropriate AA meetings. That he was not aware of your
28
criminal background or have of any lawsuits against you. That I
believe he said he felt you're a good guy. That he may have known the
member of the Nevada State Bar Association ethics Committee that you
know.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Mr. Coughlin: It's not trying to prove the truth of the matter
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
irrelevant.
15
Mr. Coughlin: It goes to my candor.
16
Judge McElroy: Its hearsay and I am going to sustain.
17
Mr. Coughlin: But its not being offered to prove the truth of the
18
19
20
21
matter asserted.
Judge McElroy: Then it's not relevant at this point, move on.
What's the next question.
22
Q: Can you continue tell me what Mr. Torson told you?
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: it is sustained.

Mr. Coughlin: He can tell me what the DMV told him?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, please ask the next question.
28
Mr. Coughlin: he could talk about my father earlier and what my
dad told him, but he can't talk about what an exculpating witness tells
him?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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?
A: As in?
Mr. Coughlin: I guess to Ms. Kagan or whoever it is you are doing
this investigation for?
A: yes.
Q: Okay, so you would do so?
15
A: Yes.
16
Q: and did you tell Ms. Kagan about Mr. Torson, and what he told
17
you?
18
A: can I speak about what I tell our attorney?
19
Judge McElroy: At this point you can.
20
21
A: yes I told her.
22
Q: And did you speak to Judge Charles McGee?
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, because he was one of the phone numbers

given with Mr. Torson's.
A: Okay, wait, the question. You can't editorialize.
Mr. Coughlin: I'm trying to jog his memory.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: He says he doesn't remember. Unless you have a

document to present to him let's move on to the next question.
Q: Remember when you originally listed the individuals you
spoke with? Did you list Mr. Torson?
A: yes.
Q:you did? Was there any other individuals? I'm not talking
about entities like the DMV or this this bar that bar, I am talking
about individuals that perhaps Ms. Kagan was given the contact
10
information for as character witnesses that you would have yourself
11
would up investigating?
12
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond his personal knowledge.
13
Judge McElroy: If you know.
14
15
16
A: I'm sorry to say this again, but I couldn't distill what the
question was of that.
17
Q: Did you talk to anybody else.
18
A: Other than?
19
Q: For instance, how did you get Mr. Torson's contact info?
20
21
A: He provided to us.
22
Q: He provided it to you?
23
A: Yes.
24
25
26
27
28
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?
A: yes.
Q: and did you call anybody else?
3
4
A: with regard to Mr. Torson?
Q: With regard to me in your investigation.
A: yes.
8
9
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead and let it stand.
10
Judge McElroy: go ahead ask the next question. He answered yes.
11
Q: Any more of those individuals?
12
Ms. Kagan: Objection, asked answered.
13
14
15
A: I believe I listed them. I can try again. Mark Tratos.
16
Mr. Coughlin: I don't need to know about the DMV and- I recall
17
18
19
20
21
you sayingJudge McElroy: Let him answer.

A: I listed them a few minutes ago. I can go through the list again.
22
Mr. Tratos, Ms. Smith, Mr. Staheli, the Nevada Bar Association, the
23
Nevada DMV, the California DMV , your father Timothy Coughlin,
24
Tony Torson, our Office of General Counsel, our office of Bar
25
Examiners. It's not an exhaustive list but that's all I can remember off
26
the top of my head.
27
28
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.
3
4
5
A: No.
Mr. Coughlin: yeah okay.
Mr. Coughlin: Did you make any attempt to- I notice you called
individuals stemming from all the incidents that Ms. Kagan is
pushing, but did you call anybody-
10
11
12
13
14

Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it.
Q: did you call anybody in an attempt to find out whether there is
any exculpating evidence?
15
A: Yes.
16
Q: who?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: I attempted to contact Judge McGee to whom you referred but

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.
A: Right.
Q: But now you're callingA: 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q: Okay, that is kind of like with the patent thing where you
didn't call them earlier.
Q: Okay, so here you have a district court judge and you have an
opportunity-
Judge McElroy: No editorializing. Ask a question.
Mr. Coughlin: that's what he is. Editorializing would be giving an
10
11
12
13
14
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
15
district court judge, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's opinions in
16
California law that say their opinion in moral character cases is to be
17
weighed heavily, it's to count a lot from what I recall-
18
19
Judge McElroy: I'm going to sustain it. There's no questions as far
20
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
27
28
them or not. Just answer them.

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.
6
7
8
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
22
23
24
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.
25
26
Q: would it be more promising because it's more obviously
27
28
negative?
Q: Would you train the focus of your investigation on to that
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
which appears to beJudge McElroy: At this point I'm going to stop you from asking
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.
10
Mr. Coughlin: yes, Your Honor, can you tell me-
11
Judge McElroy: that means I will give you another five minutes.
12
Q: yes, Your Honor, thank you. Can you tell me why you didn't
13
make any contact with the Second Judicial District Court in an
14
attempt to reach Judge McGee there.
15
16
17

Q: Can you tell me, do you think it would be important to get a
18
district court judge's opinion on that?
19
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: No more questions, Your Honor.
23
Judge McElroy: Do you have any more?
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: thank you, you may step down.

Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, may we take a ten-minute recess?
Judge McElroy: yes.
Ms. Kagan: And the State Bar will call Lynn Thingvold to stand
1
2
3
4
5
next.
Judge McElroy: Okay, and that's regarding?
Ms. Kagan: The rest of the DMV records.
Judge McElroy: Okay, back on the record.
Ms. Kagan: The State Bar calls Lynn Thingvold to the stand.
(The oath was administered to Lynn Thingvold.)
9
10
By Ms. Kagan:
11
Q: are you employed.
12
A: yes.
13
Q: where are you employed?
14
15
A: at the State Bar of California Office of the chief trial counsel.
16
Q: what is your title.
17
A: a paralegal.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q: how long have you been a paralegal with the State Bar?
A: Approximately 19 years.
Q: did you have an opportunity to work on the matter of the moral
character case Zachary B. Coughlin.
A: Yes.
Q: and as part of your work on this matter were you at all in
contact with the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles.
27
A: yes, I believe I sent them a letter.
28
Q: what was the purpose of the letter?
A: to obtain more documents from them.
Q: when you say more documents was whether other documents
that we have received from them that you are aware of my
understanding I believe I had a copy of a DMV printout that I received
from either you or Mr. Stevens, I can't recall at the moment, and it
indicated at the bottom of the document that there were other
documents that we may want to want to try and obtain.
8
9
10
11
Ms. Kagan: now, the document that yourMr. Coughlin: objection, relevance. I don't know what we're doing
with DMV stuff at this still-
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: we're gonna spend three hours on DMV stuff?
14
15
16

Q: I'd like you as part of the witness binder Exhibit 77, do you
17
recognize it?
18
A: Yes.
19
Q: How?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: I believe this is the document that I was just referring to from

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?
A: Yes.
28
Q: Your Honor, may I approach? Let the record reflect that I am
handing Mr. Coughlin a copy of Exhibit 75. And I am giving the court
a copy of Exhibit 75. And the original to the court administrator, and a
copy to the witness.
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: objection, Your Honor, on the basis of this only

being given to me right now.
Ms. Kagan: Exhibit 75 is a five-page exhibit the first page is a
letter dated September 19, 2006 from Nevada DMV to Lynn Thingvold.
11
A: correct.
12
Q: Do you recognize this exhibit?
13
14
A: I do.
15
Q: how do you recognize this exhibit?
16
A: I'm believe I'm the one who offered the letter.
17
Q: What happened to the letter after you offered it.
18
19
20
21
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?
22
A: I believe so.
23
Q: Do you recall what that was?
24
25
26
27
28
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
responding to that.
Q: And that would be a driver's license data ten year record?
A: Correct.
Q: Citation charging documents and conviction documents for a
3
4
5
6
7
conviction on 1/9/03 of speeding citation R115317?

A: yes.
Q: citation charging documents and conviction documents for
conviction on 1/20/05 speeding citation number 0000982687?
A: correct.
Q: Failure to appear citation number 102053878A and disposition?
10
11
A: correct.
12
Q: Failure to appear citation number 102497085B and disposition?
13
A: correct.
14
Q: Failure to appear citation number 102497085A and disposition.
15
16
A: yes.
17
Q: Ms. Thingvold, Id like you to turn to what's been marked
18
Exhibit 64, a 14-page exhibit the first page State of Nevada Department
19
of Motor Vehicles central services Records Division. Do you recognize
20
Exhibit 64?
21
22
23
24
25
26
A: yes I do. I believe this is what they sent back. I received back
from them in response to my letter.
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor I request to have Exhibit 64 moved into
evidence.
Judge McElroy: Its admitted into evidence.
27
Ms. Kagan: I've got no further questions for this witness.
28
Judge McElroy: Do you have any questions?
By Mr. Coughlin:
2
3
Mr. Coughlin: yes, Your Honor. Hello Ms. Thingvold. How are you
feeling today?
A: I'm okay.
5
6
Q: Can you tell me would what these charges are for?
Judge McElroy: I'm going to go ahead and let you ask the question.
I'm going to overrule the objection. I'm going to a little detection I'm
10
sorry state the question again for me can you tell me what this
11
basically what this DMV record says? Basically, what was I convicted
12
of.
13
14
A: Are you referring to Exhibit 64.
15
Mr. Coughlin: yes.
16
A: No, I can't tell you what it indicates that you may have been
17
convicted of, but I did notice at the bottom of this page there was a
18
citation date, a conviction date, a court date, a violation code, a citation
19
number. So now I can't tell you what you were convicted of.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Q: So, if this was a charge for driving 10 miles over the speed
limit, you would not know?
A: No.
Ms. Kagan: objection, relevance, and beyond her personal
knowledge.
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule the objection. She's
indicated, no, she wouldn't know. So what's the next question.
28
1
2
3
4
5
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
8
9
10
11
12
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-
13
A: why don't you just ask the question?
14
Q: okay, well in your letter, Ms. Thingvold, it says you are
15
requesting citation charging documents for my 1/9/03 speeding
16
citation?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A: I'm sorry, you are referring to my letter Exhibit 75?

Mr. Coughlin: that's correct, paragraph 2, page one, where it
begins: I'm requesting the following documents from your agency and
and you go on to mention a speeding citation in the last three letters
3/1/07 from 1/9/03. in Exhibit 64, would that be the the citation
referred? At the bottom of Exhibit 64, page one?
24
Ms. Kagan: Objection, vague.
25
Judge McElroy: okay if you know. I think he's referring to
26
00982687?
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: well actually, perhaps, but I was referring to the
one that ends in 317, hat's right above that R115317 and, prior to that, it
says a 1/9/03 speeding-
4
5
6
7
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
10
we have no idea what they are for? So maybe it would be helpful if we
11
knew what they were for?
12
13
14
15
16
17
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
18
itself, okay? There's failures to appear in it. Notices of failures to
19
appear in it. There is citations, and if you want to go into it in detail
20
and- You know? That, that's fine.
21
22
23
24
25
Q: Okay, Ms. Thingvold, do these failures to appear, do they relate

to the speeding citations.
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond her personal knowledge.
26
Q: can you tell me what these failures to appear relate to?
27
Ms. Kagan: objection, irrelevant and beyond her personal
28
knowledge.
Q: Ms. Thingvold, in a lot of these failure to appear, one ends in
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
085B and one ends in 085A. Are those related to the same ticket?
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond her personal knowledge, beyond the
scope of direct, and irrelevant
Judge McElroy: Sustained on beyond
the scope and also on beyond her personal knowledge.

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
18
that are listed here the 878A and the 085A and the 085B, which both,
19
the A and B ones, both stem from the same date, 5/31/01 and the 87A
20
stems from 2/24/00? Those are the dates of those, correct? So the are
21
some time ago, right?
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A: I can only say what this piece of paper says and it has an end
date of the date that you just gave.
Q: Okay, and can failure to appear be for failure to have proof of
insurance?
Ms. Kagan: Objection, beyond her personal knowledge.
Judge McElroy: and that's sustained, based on that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A: can failures to appear stem from a failure to have proof of

registration or an expired registration.
Judge McElroy: Its sustained and it's also irrelevant. The issues is
you didn't report these failures to appear and were supposed to report
them.
Mr. Coughlin: And that's for sure, right?
Judge McElroy: that's the issue.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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
ticket?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, it says what it says. Let's move on
17
and ask the next question. I'm suggesting that you might want to go to
18
what's relevant.
19
20
21
22
Mr. Coughlin: ok, yes, Your Honor.

Q: Ms. Thingvold, if I could direct you to Exhibit 1, page 12. Can
23
you tell me is speeding a violation does that come within what's
24
required from the second paragraph's instruction as to what you need to
25
report?
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: Objection, beyond her personal knowledge, relevance,

beyond the scope of direct.
Q: Can you see where it says in answering the following questions
you should include all such incidents and convictions. This is in the
State Bar's application.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ms. Kagan: Same objection, Your Honor.

Mr. Coughlin: I haven't finished my question, Your Honor, and
Ms. Kagan certainly got to read all afternoon.
Judge McElroy: Continue with your question. Go ahead and
finish your question and the let the objection.
10
Mr. Coughlin: I'm just telling you what this is from. This is from
11
the State Bar's application to practice law, moral character. It's under
12
the sections which direct you what convictions you need to report. It
13
says in answering the following questions you should include all such
14
incidents and convictions no matter how minor the incident, and it goes
15
on to tell you what that means. Traffic violations which must be
16
reported under this question include failure to appear, driving without
17
a license, driving with a suspended license, and reckless driving as well
18
as other traffic violations that result in a misdemeanor or felony
19
convictions can you tell me in your research in these documents that
20
you are here to verify, do those speeding tickets qualify as any of those?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance, beyond the scope of direct,

beyond her personal knowledge.
Mr. Coughlin: How is that not relevant?
Judge McElroy: The issue is- I'm going to sustain the objection.
And I don't think it it's relevant in terms of coming from this witness.
Mr. Coughlin: okay, thank you Your Honor.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: in other words, her interpretation of this

application is meaningless to this court.
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Thingvold, do you perform
legal research for Ms. Kagan?
Q: Ms. Thingvold, can you tell me what type of work you did on
9
10
11
12
13
14
this case?
Ms. Kagan: objection, beyond the scope of direct.
Q: Can you tell me how you would describe the purpose of your
testimony here today, what it was getting across?
15
16
17
18
19
20
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?
21
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 64 went into evidence.
22
Mr. Coughlin: But it's the same documents as what is in-
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: it's not all the same but you know what? You
need to ask the next question.
Q: In Exhibit 64, page 3, does that say that with regard to failure
to appear, that one can pay a late fee or fine for failing to appear and
28
taking care of whatever underlying citation there was and then that
thereupon one will be able to drive again, have their license-
3
4
5
6
Ms. Kagan: objection relevance .

Judge McElroy: I'm gonna go ahead let her look at look at page
three, and.
A: I don't know, I'd have to read it.
Judge McElroy: Why don't you give her an opportunity to read it.
A: your question, again?
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q: Does this document basically say that in order to prevent the

suspension of one's driving privilege, one need paid the fine related to
this failure to appear, and thereupon doing so the driving privilege
will not be suspended?
A: I believe it says you can prevent the suspension if you pay the
16
court fine and obtain a clearance from the court before 6/27. I think
17
those were two different things.
18
Q: Okay, thank you. And on page 4, can you tell me, dealing with
19
citation 085B, which is mentioned in your letter of Exhibit 75, does that
20
say that this charge relates to having proof of insurance?
21
22
23
24
A: it appears to.
Q: Okay, so, the failure to appear then would be for not paying the
fine and presenting proof of insurance on time.
25
26
Judge McElroy: It is also irrelevant.
27
Mr. Coughlin: how is this relevant?
28
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.
4
5
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, have we established that I didn't report it to

the State Bar?
Judge McElroy: yes, I think you admitted that you did.
Mr. Coughlin: No, I don't recall doing that.
Judge McElroy: well, anyway it didn't appear on your application.
10
Let's go on to the next question.
11
Mr. Coughlin: well, now, the convictions- the speeding tickets,
12
don't need to be on the application, right, Your Honor? Those aren't
13
listed within page 12 of the application, Exhibit 1.
14
15
16
Judge McElroy: I can't function as your attorney.

Mr. Coughlin: I know but I am just asking for relevancy's sake.
17
Why are we talking about speeding tickets when they're not even
18
convictions.
19
Judge McElroy: We are talking about failures to appear.
20
Mr. Coughlin: Half of this day was spent showing speeding tickets.
21
22
23
Judge McElroy: Go on to the next question. What is the next

question.
24
Mr. Coughlin: I don't have any more questions, Your Honor.
25
Judge McElroy: you may step down.
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: Your honor, for clarification, we didn't know what

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 are-
5
6
7
8
Judge McElroy: The issue is failure to report, failures to appear,

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.
9
10
Tucker, but I understand that we're going to convene again on March
11
17th.
12
13
Judge McElroy: And he 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
17
18
19
20
evidence?
Mr. Coughlin: I would like to call Ms. Kagan to the stand.
Judge McElroy: you're not going to be allowed to call her. So, any
other witnesses?
21
Mr. Coughlin: may I ask why?
22
Judge McElroy: No. Do you have any witnesses?
23
Mr. Coughlin: I would also like to point out that citation-
24
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: 878A is for an expired license plate as well.
27
Judge McElroy: Do you have any other witnesses?
28
Mr. Coughlin: Yes, I would like to call myself.
Judge McElroy: you can.
Mr. Coughlin: And testify in the narrative format.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judge McElroy: yes, you do. Yes, you can and also you are under
oath, you understand that?
By Mr. Coughlin:
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./
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: and. Further to address the candor issue, Id like to
14
point out some things that were reported. Your Honor, every arrest I
15
had was reported promptly to both state bars and the things that Ms.
16
Kagan is saying have not been reported our paling in comparison to
17
those. They're the types of small clerical oversights that previous
18
opinions from this Court have mentioned as, particularly in a case
19
where one has reported something far more serious, the court has
20
deemed those to be so minor as to be inconsequential in bearing upon
21
issue candor and character. Specifically, in this regard, I would point to
22
Ms. Kagan's mincing attempts at distinguishing between being a patent
23
attorney and being a patent agent.
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Kagan: I object to that characterization.

Mr. Coughlin: Further, a failure to appear for something as minor
as not having proof of insurance or being late to pay the fine for proof
of insurance, or being late to send in the fine for not having an
expiration sticker on one's license plate is a mincing attempt as well at
showing some lack of candor on Ms. Kagan's part, particularly where
someone has self-reported in regard to alcohol use, thus resulting an
extensive invasion of privacy and involvement with the LAP program,
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
10
not be reported. So if that doesn't go above and beyond what's called for
11
in terms of being having candor and being forthright with the bar, I
12
would be surprised. Id also like to note in regard to the bar's position
13
that I somehow inadequately reported the academic dishonesty
14
investigation that Exhibit 1, page 25 wherein I have an update to my
15
application has language in it that is pretty much taken directly from
16
Mr. Philip Burn's, the Student Judicial Affairs Officer UNLV, his one
17
page, and I believe this is the exhibit that we looked at with Dean
18
Smith, his one-page summation of what his investigation and his
19
ruling says. In that I quote from Exhibit 1, page 25, this is paragraph 3
20
after this the bottom of it: after the Student Judicial Affairs Officer
21
for my law school conducted a full investigation the matter was
22
resolved with a finding that no academic dishonesty took place on my
23
part. How Ms. Kagan can try to turn this into I somehow didn't report
24
this or inaccurately reported it when that's language taken directly
25
from Mr. Burn's ruling on the matter, I don't understand.
26
27
28
May I have one second to get my index, Your Honor?

Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: one other thing, and I'm just trying to stick to
things that really stand out to me and not take up any more of your
time with things that I don't have a good faith belief are important to
this case is the LAP program. I don't know if you've ever seen a LAP
program brochure like those that are out in the hallway before your
courtroom. They go to great lengths to stress how confidential the
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
10
11
12
program to monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse.

Ms. Kagan: Objection, what is Mr. Coughlin quoting verbatim
from?
13
Mr. Coughlin: That would be the abeyance agreement between
14
myself and the State Bar dated July 2004. that would be Exhibit 38,
15
wherein on page two paragraph 3 it says: Coughlin's recovery from
16
alcohol abuse will be monitored by an agent from the LAP program. I
17
don't understand, one how a program that so openly purports to be
18
confidential and stresses that in all its literature and advertisements
19
in bar journals and the like and can result in someone like myself
20
having all their medical records gone through-
21
22
23
24
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
25
biggest Catch-22 in the world? Where we're going to say we are such a
26
confidential program, now sign this waiver releasing your
27
confidentiality-
28
Judge McElroy: That happened in this case, so let's move on to
1
2
another issue.
3
4
Mr. Coughlin: they do that to everybody, every single applicant.

So why say you are a confidential program. I don't get it.
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, you waived it, move on.
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: In my narrative testimony I will say I don't get it-
Judge McElroy: you obviously don't. So, let's go on.
Mr. Coughlin: no, I really don't get it.
10
Judge McElroy: that's clear.
11
Mr. Coughlin: further, this involvement with the LAP program
12
13
whereupon I entered into an agreement with the State Bar which says
14
that my recovery and I'm quoting from Exhibit 38 page two paragraph
15
3 as I did earlier my recovery from alcohol abuse will be monitored by
16
an agent from the LAP program. How that can turn into getting all my
17
medical records and presenting them to the bench? How that can turn
18
into having that in an opinion? How that can amount to if you look at
19
the LAP's- and in this goes to something we spoke about in one of our
20
teleconferences, Your Honor wherein, you said thatJudge McElroy: Please. The issue is whether you have the
21
22
requisite moral character to become a lawyer in the State of California.
23
Confine your testimony to that issue.
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, Your Honor, I believe my testimony right

now does speak to that-
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: A waiver of confidentiality has nuthin' to do with

it.
Mr. Coughlin: does it have to do with one's candor? If one has been
battered around and treated by Sipowicz on NYPD Blue, is one going to
be all that candid? If one has no faith in the people who are-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
vacuum or does that depend who I'm talking to? You know, if I'm
getting abused and having vexatious and nefarious tactics thrown at
me am I still supposed to be completely candid?
11
Ms. Kagan: Objection to the characterization of that.
12
Judge McElroy: Yes.
13
Mr. Coughlin: In the face of all that?
14
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: in the face of all that.

Mr. Coughlin: should the Duke lacrosse players been completely
candid to the runaway rogue prosecutor?
18
19
Judge McElroy: I am not going to answer any more questions. I am
20
21
22
23
not the person on trial on here, you are.

Mr. Coughlin: I'm testifying. That was more of an
extemporaneous question.
24
Judge McElroy: Then, please, testify.
25
Mr. Coughlin: That was a theoretical question.
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: I understand that, move on. Okay, I'm giving you
15 minutes and then I'm wrapping this up in terms of your testimony
and you.
Mr. Coughlin: So, I get 15 minutes but we can take an hour and a
1
2
half to verify documents from the DMV?
Judge McElroy: yes.
4
5
6
Mr. Coughlin: To prove speeding tickets that didn't even need to

be reported?
Judge McElroy: That's correct, go ahead.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, I just want to be sure. So, I'm still confused as
to-
10
Judge McElroy: confusion is not what you're supposed to testify
11
about. Just please testify as to rebutting the State Bar's position that
12
you do lack the requisite moral character to be a lawyer in California.
13
That's what you're on trial for, what you are on the stand for right now.
14
That is not evidence. Don't tell me you're confused or that you don't
15
understand. That is not evidence, your confusion.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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
said 10 feet. The witness says it's in a room that's all oblong, that's no
larger than this room. So to say I somehow didn't report that I think is
baseless or that my reporting of it was somehow inaccurate I don't see
where there's an issue with that at all. So that will lead to the State
Bar saying there's an issue with my reporting of the paper
investigation for which Mark Tratos' testimony was to speak to. Well I
direct the court's attention to Exhibit 1, page 25, wherein if you consider
the last two paragraphs, and this goes to candor and rebutting the State
Bar's assertion that I was somehow misleading in my reporting of this,
and I know Ive already hit on this, but I just want to take one second to
point this out again is that I did report there was a investigation. An
academic dishonesty investigation, whereupon the State Bar certainly
10
able to get the story from someone besides me, you know? So largely just
11
reporting it in itself pretty much in my opinion it covers the candor
12
aspect of it. Now granted, if someone goes on to tell a bunch of lies
13
about it then that would prove to be otherwise. But I take language
14
straight out of Mr. Burn's report. I'd also like to mention that I'm not
15
entirely sure that I didn't provide that report to the State Bar. That is
16
not clear to me because I believe there's a good chance that I, or Mr.
17
Fishkin, my prior attorney would have provided that reports to the
18
State Bar.
19
20
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lacks foundation.

Mr. Coughlin: but did you ever prove that you did or that I didn't?
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: I don't recall it ever being proved how they got a
24
25
26
27
28
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?
Judge McElroy: ok so let's move on to the next.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but a characterization? Okay, but clearly in
page 25 my addendum or something to my application I say there's an
academic dishonesty investigation. This is the third paragraph. I say
the matter was resolved with a finding that no academic dishonesty
took place on my part. That's accurate. Dean Smith testified as much.
Mr. Burns's opinion letter on this says the same thing. So where the
State Bar is saying I was inaccurate or misleading, I'm not sure? I
gather it's from the sentence that says there was a formal letter of
10
11
12
13
warning but if we refer to Mr. Burn'sJudge McElroy: Exhibit 53.

Mr. Coughlin: Thank you, Your Honor. If we refer to that I'll
14
directed the last paragraph whereupon Mr. Burns says I'm
15
recommending this case be resolved on an informal basis. You have 10
16
working days after receipt of an informal resolution letter to request
17
that a formal hearing take place, all sanctions offered through the
18
informal process will be void, the formal hearing Committee, yet you
19
know and it goes on. So that language to me certainly sounds like this
20
is informal. Further,in paragraph 2, there's further language that
21
points to an informal tone to this, this whole investigation and the
22
resolution thereof wherein, and I quote, in paragraph 2 line 4: in
23
addition, it appears that academic dishonesty did not occur. I'm sorry,
24
above that. after an investigation it appears that the matter of your
25
remarks has been informally resolved between you and your
26
instructors. In addition, it appears that academic dishonesty did not
27
occur. so how the State Bar can go on to say I somehow inaccurately
28
reported this such that you should deny me a law license after five
years of fighting this battle with the State Bar and their deep pockets
and extensive set of resources that they have to use in presenting
something like ten witnesses and having-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ms. Kagan: Objection, motion to strike.

Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, it appears that you are running on
and I think what I need to do is direct your attention to what the court
is interested in. I've heard enough information in terms of what you
didn't report on your application in terms of the student investigation,
okay? I've heard enough evidence on that. The issues here are the
failure to report the Department of Motor Vehicles violations that is
the failure to appears. There's also the civil judgment and defaults that
you didn't report. There's also your employment history, your address
history and your financial obligations that you didn't report. You
should direct the remainder of your testimony to dealing with those
issues. They were not reported. They were material omissions that were
not reported. Deal with that.
Mr. Coughlin: thank you, Your Honor, I appreciate your focusing
19
me in that regard. If I had telephone conversations with Ms. Kagan
20
that would amount to reporting the default judgment, would that be
21
pertinent?
22
Ms. Kagan: objection.
23
Judge McElroy: you can testify to whatever you want to testify to.
24
All I'm saying is that they're not on your application and they're not
25
winning and you need to provide us with an explanation as to why they
26
were not on your application, why they were not given an update until
27
a certain point. We're not giving an update until 2/15/07.
28
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
3
4
5
6
7
have taken place prior to that.

Judge McElroy: that's all hearsay. I don't know. It's inherently
unreliable, it is just your verbal assertions. But if that's the evidence
you want to present that's fine.
Mr. Coughlin: And can Ms. Kagan be made to speak to that?
Judge McElroy: No.
10
Mr. Coughlin: so we can't we can't ask her that? Ms. Kagan is not
11
the Committee of Examiners. You were supposed to report this to the
12
Committee of Examiners. She is not a member of the Committee of
13
Examiners. You need to offer an explanation as to why you did not
14
report these things.
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
21
been reported to the State Bar? So, in essence, if I didn't send my update
22
to the State Bar, I still haven't reported it to them, right? About the
23
financial stuff?
24
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, please just address the issues.
25
There's nothing until Feb, or September 15, 2007. prior to that it wasn't
26
reported, why not?
27
28
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.
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-
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ms. Kagan: I object on the characterization of this testimony.

Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection and strike it.
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
14
been in business for yourself you reported that you were in business for
15
yourself October 2003 until 2005. at that time to my knowledge, Ms.
16
Kagan was not even on the case. Why wasn't it reported in 2003 that
17
you were, in fact, an owner and operator of your own business when you
18
were supposed to report it? Those are the kind of issues I'm interested
19
in. I'm not interested in a diatribe against the prosecutor. You are the
20
person that is sitting here on trial. So you need to address those issues. I
21
would suggest that you stay away from impugning Ms. Kagan. That is
22
not helping your case. You need to take responsibility for your material
23
omissions from this application.
24
Mr. Coughlin: Okay. I do need to take responsibility for not
25
reporting the financial debts I owed earlier. For not reporting the
26
business, although I can't say I knew I had to report that, I know there's
27
language that says you have a continuing duty and if you look at this
28
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
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
you know a salient quality to them within this application. I've seen
case law where someone to failed to report some minor aspect of
something related to a question in this application, however they
reported something more serious, like an arrest and the court took note
10
of that and it weighed the relative importance of each reporting and
11
found something like not reporting failure to appear that stems from
12
not having proof of registration and paying the fine late as to
13
inconsequential to affect the decision whether or not one should be
14
getting a law license after going to law school and passing the bar exam
15
and incurring a great deal of student debt. I mean I as public policy
16
issue here, I think a certain amount of, I don't want to say common
17
sense, but I think a certain amount of- that's just, that's just too harsh.
18
We're going to turn this guy's law license down because he didn't report
19
he had a speeding ticket? That's a little harsh I think and I think that
20
sends a bad message out to people about this profession and sends a bad
21
message out to prospective attorneys. So I agree with you I do need to
22
take responsibility about reporting things like the financial debts,
23
about reporting that I was in business for myself. With regard to the
24
judgment, the civil judgment or first with regard to the unlawful
25
retainers I can't say I- I didn't realize that needed to be reported until
26
some point probably after Ms. Kagan indicated that to me. I didn't
27
realize that there was case numbers and cases against me. I thought I
28
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
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
proved that I had knowledge there was an unlawful detainer action
against me. I think we can prove that I had been evicted, but I don't
know about if those are the same thing. Maybe they are, but that's a
subtle distinction. With regard to the judgment by the Uni-shippers
10
that to me seems more obvious that that's something that needs to be
11
reported, however I can say that at the time that judgment occurred
12
which my understanding is was some time in early 2005 or early 2006,
13
and just by way of reference, I was terminated from the LAP program
14
in early 2006? so whether or not I have a duty to report anything after
15
I've been terminated from the LAP program, I don't know.. and even
16
prior to that I don't know that I have a duty to report something. Now
17
there might be a rule saying just this but that I have a duty to report
18
something after the State Bar has turned me down as well. At that
19
point, as I understand that I'm involved in litigation. You know it's a
20
little bit different than someone who is originally applying for
21
something and I think it's important to note that in my original
22
application from 02 I don't believe the State Bar has shown that there
23
was any anything of substance that I failed to include or that I was
24
somehow misleading about. All the issues the State Bar is taking is
25
from events that occurred some of them in late 05 that we weren't
26
reported. At that stage of the game, I'm in litigation with the State Bar
27
or earlier than that I had an attorney, Mr. Fishkin. Mr. Fishkin knew I
28
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
this litigation and that Ms. Kagan indicated me that I would have an
opportunity-
6
7
8
9

Mr. Coughlin: I'm not able to say what she said to me?
Judge McElroy: okay it's not going in for the truth of the matter
10
stated, it's going to, it's relevant to your state of mind, ok Ill let it in.
11
Mr. Coughlin: ok thank you. Ms. Kagan said to me that I would
12
have an opportunity to update the State Bar with regard to the things
13
that needed to be updated in connection with my application. At some
14
point Ms. Kagan must have changed her mind because she filed her
15
application which-
16
17
18
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
it's relevant to his state of mind and how he. I will go ahead and let him
testify.
22
Mr. Coughlin: thank you and so if we're talking about not
23
reporting that judgment in connection with the shipping charges my
24
contention would be that you could consider my statements to Ms.
25
Kagan as reporting it which would have been sometime in late mid-to-
26
late 06 and if the judgment didn't come until I believe around either
27
later 2005 or early 06 then in the context of being involved in this
28
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
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
that I was sure that my appeal avenues had been exhausted in that
regard. As far as not reporting stuff that's pretty much all I wish to say
10
about that.
11
12
I can think of some other things I would go on about but if there's

something you could direct my focus to-
13
14
15
Judge McElroy: No, I think you've covered the issues in terms of

what this court needs to know.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so if I can just be sure, Your Honor, before I
16
17
say I don't have anything else I'd like to-
18
Judge McElroy: discuss the academic dishonesty investigation.
19
Mr. Coughlin: and the reporting is what's really important, isn't
20
21
it?
Judge McElroy: yes. You have reported the law school computer.
22
You have dealt with that issue. Dealt with the employment history
23
and your termination. You- we, you dealt with the U.S. Patent and
24
Trademark Office.
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I am sorry, Your Honor, my termination from

where?
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.
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: The conviction for dry reckless?
Judge McElroy: yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, can I move to strike anything regarding the
10
11
12
13
14
15
movie arrest.
Judge McElroy: No.
Mr. Coughlin: okay, does it matter that those aren't required to be
reported by the application?
Judge McElroy: that issue goes to behavior/ that's not to
16
reporting. Okay, and we have dealt with the civil judgments in default.
17
Dealt with the address financial obligations.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Coughlin: I would like to make a few statements about the not
reporting of things like the address, andJudge McElroy: Go ahead.
Mr. Coughlin: Upon a review of this and the dates of my address,
you can tell, and in fact my reporting arrests that didn't even need to
be reported to the State Bar, which I did in my original application
with regard to the movie theater arrest, but also in my prompt
reporting of the DUI to dry reckless conviction arrest, you see a trend
here. It's anything that, that you know, obviously needed to be reported
was promptly reported. I believe yourself, myself, and Ms. Kagan, we
could point to issues or situations where we are vaguely aware or we
might be aware that some prospective attorney didn't report something
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
10
ticket failure to appear doesn't seem right to me. But also just what I
11
really wanted to get at was, okay, they are saying you're not really
12
keeping us updated in the way we'd like to see an applicant do it. You're
13
not giving us your address history promptly. You're not reporting
14
speeding tickets, although I don't think those are supposed to be
15
reported, but things like . and I can say, absolutely, I agree with you, I
16
should have done a better job of that. I should have been more
17
fastidious, in particular, and prompt. But, I don't know that I can
18
communicate to you quite what it's like going to through a five-year
19
thing like this with three different state bars. And it's been longer than
20
five years, because all this, what you see in these exhibits started to
21
occur and late 2001. and so now we're in May 2005, or 2007. So that is
22
something like six years and change of going through this. And that's
23
on top of taking and passing three bar Exams, getting out of law school,
24
going through law school not on somebody else's dime,
25
but through a great deal of student loans, and saving, and sacrificing.
26
And, so you know, for a lot of people that's tiring enough, just doing
27
that, and then going starting a job where you get paid a good deal of
28
money is tiring.
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
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
10
trouble to pay all these people to make these records on my dime, in,
11
you know, which if we get into the LAP stuff will show a LAP
12
statement where they say nobody will be turned away because they
13
can't pay. We will pay for you if you need help with the LAP. That
14
wasn't the case with me because I wound up paying all these doctors for
15
their reports and and a lot of stuff. So my involvement with LAP and
16
the financial difficulties of all this in combination with some of the
17
physical problems I face on a daily basis like chronic back and neck
18
pain, ADD and you know whatever other issues we want to talk about.
19
And I'm certainly not going to get into alcohol related things because of
20
the bureaucratic morass that has surrounded any attempt to have an
21
honest discussion about that with the State Bar. But all that in total
22
can wear you down a great deal. And so you may not be on top of your
23
game and you not might not be reporting where I lived from when to
24
when to the State Bar as promptly as you should. But I would just ask
25
that you try to give that some consideration. And other than that I
26
don't think I have a great deal to say other than, I think it's a shame if
27
someone like Judge McGee, a district court judge, doesn't get have an
28
opportunity to-
Judge McElroy: and I'm going to sustain the objection at this
3
4
5
6
7
point. Do you have any more evidence?

Mr. Coughlin: we're still, I mean, I was I had a urine and blood
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.
10
11
12
13
Judge McElroy: so you're reserving the rest of your testimony

until after the doctor testifies.
14
Judge McElroy: Do you have any cross-examination?
15
Ms. Kagan: only the question of whether Mr. Coughlin wants to
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
admit the doctor's report into evidence at this time.

Mr. Coughlin: is that is that pressing at this point? Can I take
some time to review it further?
Judge McElroy: Sure, its up to you.
Mr. Coughlin: If the court doesn't mind, I'd like to have the
opportunity to review it further before coming back.
23
Judge McElroy: Yes. That's fine, okay, any other?
24
25
26
Judge McElroy: Okay, so we will come back on Thursday at 10:30,

next Thursday, May 17th.
27
28
Ms. Kagan: If for some reason the doctor can not come back on that
1
2
3
4
day?
Judge McElroy: Notify the court as soon as possible and also the
applicant. We are off the record.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
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.
10
Mr. Coughlin called the court at a quarter to nine and said that he was
11
10 minutes away. The court called him again at 9:45, excuse me 9:30 and
12
told him to be here. He said that he was the 10 minutes away. And he's
13
still not here. So, we're going to resume without him, okay?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(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
your background before we go on discussing this matter. Where did you
receive your education?
A: I went to undergraduate and medical school at University of
21
Michigan in Ann Arbor and I did my medical internship, my
22
psychiatric residency, and my first fellowship at the UCLA in Los
23
Angeles, my second psychiatric fellowship in forensic psychiatry at
24
Rush Presbyterian saint Lukes Hospital in Chicago.
25
Q: are you currently in practice?
26
A: yes.
27
28
Q: An what is your practice?
A: my practice is general adult outpatient psychiatry.
Q: do you have any specializations?
3
4
5
6
A: yes I do. I am board certified in general psychiatry, I'm also

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
10
physician, essentially, who deal with addictions, the physical and
11
biological as well as the emotional and psychiatric dimensions.
12
Addiction psychiatry is more of a psychiatric perspective, so we are
13
interested in the biology and what's going on in the brain and the body
14
of the addict or alcoholic but we also are interested in the psychosocial
15
aspects. These are, after all, bio-psychosocial disorders. There are
16
biological, psychological, and social determinants of addictive disorders
17
18
19
20
21
Q: Dr. Tucker, please look at exhibit 71A which is the curriculum

vitae of Douglas Tucker, MD. Do you recognize this exhibit?
A: yes. This is my most recent CV.
22
Q: is the information contained on this CV accurate?
23
A: yes it is.
24
K. I move to have Exhibit 71A moved into evidence.
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: 71A is moved into evidence and the record should
reflect that Mr. Coughlin has entered the court at ten to ten and we
28
have started with the direct examination of Dr. Tucker. Did you have a
chance to evaluate Zachary Coughlin?
3
4
5
A: Yes.
Q: When did you perform that evaluation?
A: We met at my office on April 27th of this year.
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.
10
11
12
Judge McElroy: do you have any cross-examination on that issue?

C. No, Your Honor.
13
M: Okay, he's an expert in the field of addiction psychiatry.
14
Q: Going back to the evaluation. After you performed the
15
evaluation did you issue a report in this matter?
16
A: yes, I did.
17
Q: Look at exhibit 71, which is on the letterhead of Douglas E.
18
Tucker, MD, and it is dated May 7, 2007, and it is In Re Zachary B.
19
Coughlin and it is case number 06-M-13755. Do you recognize this?
20
21
A: yes.
22
Q: how do you recognize the exhibit?
23
A: This is the report that I wrote in this case.
24
25
26
27
Q: Dr. Tucker, is this report accurate.

A: yes.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Judge McElroy: okay I think there should be more of a

foundation. Why don't you set up more of a foundation.
Ms. Kagan: So what was the purpose of the report, Dr. Tucker?
A: Well, I was asked to perform a forensic psychiatric evaluation
of Mr. Coughlin, focusing in particular on issues of alcohol or other
substance abuse and to determine if he had any diagnoses, and, if so,
what kind of monitoring or treatment would be recommended.
Q: Did you do that?
10
A: Yes.
11
Q: Can you explain a little bit about what took place in the
12
evaluation and what you looked at in order to form your opinion.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
could. I asked the issues that are meeting up to this evaluation as well
as more broadly his psychiatric and substance abuse history,
developmental history, academic, legal history, his social history in
relationships, past medical history, family history. I really you did a
comprehensive psychiatric assessment and sat down and thought about
him and thought about the report and dictated this report.
26
Q: Were you able to form an opinion in this matter?
27
A: Yes, I was.
28
Q: And what was your opinion?
A: well I have that my opinions break down into four areas. The
first one really is titled violations really more just a summary of the
violations. The second, number two, substance abuse is my opinions
about his substance abuse and the foundation for that. The third area
for opinion is his psychiatric disorders which contribute to his
vulnerability to substance abuse one page 3 and 4, and again, my
opinions with the foundation for them. Then finally starting at page 4,
my treatment recommendations, starting with an assessment of what
he has received or is currently receiving and then my recommendations
10
11
for what would be appropriate treatment for him.

Q: If you could turn to the top of page 3, the report states at the
12
last sentence of the first paragraph, an additional test for the presence
13
of alcoholism, urinary ethyl glucuronide, is pending at the time this
14
report. Have you since received the results from that test.
15
16
A: yes, I have.
17
Q: And what were the results?
18
A: The results were negative meaning that we don't have lab
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?
A: no, it doesn't.
Q: is it true that you also reviewed a draft at the deposition
25
transcript of Mr. Coughlin that was taken on April 26 th, 2007 before
26
compiling the report.
27
28
A: I would have reviewed the documents that I had listed in my

beginning. Have you sent me- you may be referring to an additional
document which you sent me late in the game that I did not list here is
that what you were suggesting?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
K. Yes, was there a deposition transcript that was sent to you the
morning of your evaluation?
A: yes. I believe so. I believe there was.
Q: Do you recall whether that was a deposition transcript of Mr.
Coughlin's testimony from the day before?
A: yes there were, I believe there were two depositions. Let me just
10
take a moment. It looks like that there was a deposition part 1 on
11
March 2nd which I got, and when there was a deposition part two of Mr.
12
Coughlin on April 26 which was the day before my interview which I
13
just received that day but I did review that as well.
14
15
16
Q: Did you review it?

A: I did.
17
Q: Did that change the opinion that you came to in your report?
18
A: no, it didn't.
19
Q: Is their anything that changes your opinion that you reached
20
21
22
23
in this case.
A: no, I currently would stand by my opinions as expressed in this
report.
24
25
A: I now request to have Exhibit 71 moved into evidence.
26
27
28

Q: Dr. Tucker, what is your opinion about whether Mr. Coughlin
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
suffers from past or current alcohol or other drug abuse or dependency?

A: On page 2 of my report under substance abuse that he does meet
the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and marijuana abuse. And that
diagnosis is not one that disappears, so it's generally considered a
lifelong diagnosis. You can be in remission meaning that you are not
currently using substances, but once you've met the criteria for that
condition you would be considered vulnerable to abusing those
substances throughout your life.
12
Q: What was your opinion that he may be in remission based on?
13
A: That is based on what he told me, which was that he's not used
14
since returning to Reno in 2003, and also, he doesn't show evidence of
15
recent substance use.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q: the labs that you performed, approximately what time frame

are we talking about regarding use of alcohol or substances?
Mr. Coughlin: Excuse me, Your Honor, can I make an objection or
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
24
it. This is the basis, he's an expert and experts are allowed to rely on
25
hearsay information.
26
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but for instance, a statement Dr. Tucker is
27
attributing to me, that isn't necessarily the same as if I had said yes I
28
had said yes, I had, in fact, said those exact words.
Judge McElroy: Right. You can cross-examine him on that.
Mr. Coughlin: That is not entered into the record as something I
actually said. It's just something that Dr. Tucker is saying I said?
4
5
6
7
8
9
Judge McElroy: Is basing his opinion on. Dr. Tucker says that you
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
10
information just for the previous several days, three days or so, the
11
urine ethyl glucuronide maybe out as far as a week would tell us if he
12
were consuming alcohol, and the liver function tests which I looked at,
13
might give us information of alcohol use within the previous several
14
weeks. So, I would say it doesn't go back for more than several weeks.
15
Q: So, would it be possible that somebody could be consuming
16
alcohol approximately a month before these tests were taken and it
17
wouldn't show up on the test?
18
19
20
21
A: Yes.
Q: Do you believe that Mr. Coughlin is rehabilitated from his
alcohol issues-
22
A: If I could just amplify my answer, yes and he could have been
23
drinking and using drugs as recently as a week prior to the interview
24
with these results on the test.
25
26
Q: Would you say that Mr. Coughlin is rehabilitated from the

problems that you have diagnosed him with.
27
28
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.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q: Do you know whether or not he is currently seeking treatment?

A: Well, he's currently, he says, attending AA meetings,
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings an average in three or four times a
week, still experiencing rare cravings for alcohol, he says, when his
pain worsens, but also still not sure if he has any problems with
substance abuse, or if this is going to be a lifelong problem for him. He's
also currently taking Wellbuttrin, which is an antidepressant, he does
have chronic depression, which is also moderately effective for
attention deficit disorder, which he suffers from as well. And, he takes
as needed, ibuprofen for pain so that's the treatment that is currently
receiving. I don't believe that he is seeking additional treatment
beyond that at this time.
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
20
sophisticated professional treatment for all the conditions that I
21
describe here. When you say need treatment, I don't believe that he
22
would be in any way considered, aside from some legal proceeding like
23
this, he would never be considered for involuntary treatment. He is not
24
a danger to himself or others on the street. I would recommend
25
treatment to him as a clinician and I think he would benefit from that.
26
I think the court or professional bodies might have some opinion about
27
his fitness to practice law which might lean toward a suggestion or
28
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
it's up to him.
By Mr. Coughlin:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q: Yes, thank you, Your Honor, I apologize for being late to Your
Honor, Dr. Tucker, and Ms. Kagan. Dr. Tucker if someone an alcoholic
and they drank for a week up to a test, wouldn't the tests show that
someone as an alcoholic would have a different physiology, perhaps in
terms of maybe the functioning of their pancreas or liver or something
in that area than someone who is not an alcoholic? Therefore stopping
drinking a week before a test would still show something that a nonalcoholic wouldn't show on such a test?
A: Well, as I was saying to me, it is possible, depending on the
15
level of drinking and the particular genetic vulnerability of the liver
16
involved, because I only did liver function test, that somebody could
17
continue drinking at a moderate level up to a week before this test and
18
that would not be reflected in the liver function tests. They could
19
appear normal. But even if someone's drinking quite heavily, even if
20
they stopped a month, you know, a few weeks, a month before hand, that
21
is usually enough time for a liver to return to normal.
22
Q: I notice you went into in your report, not just alcohol abuse or
23
recovery therefrom but also into mental health issues, things of that
24
sort, and you also went into the use of marijuana. In fact, I believe in
25
here you also said I meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and
26
marijuana abuse. Why did marijuana become part of your findings in
27
addition to being, it appears, part of your research into this?
28
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
other drug abuse or dependency and marijuana will be another drug of
abuse. Also, you had a DUI related to marijuana. So those would be the
primary reasons.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q: Okay, so when you say I had a DUI, can you tell me what that
means?
A: Yes, on January 23rd 2003 you were arrested for a DUI
marijuana. Pled guilty to a dry reckless driving charge and you were
court ordered to attend twelve step meetings.
Q: So, when you say had a DUI, would you distinguish between
15
someone who is ultimately guilty of a DUI from someone who was
16
arrested for a DUI but did not receive a DUI?
17
18
19
20
21
22
A: I would say just that you were arrested for a DUI is what I'm
referring to.
Q: Okay, so based on being arrested for DUI and what else led you
23
to say that I meet the diagnostic criteria, or I don't know if you're
24
making a diagnosis here, but led you to say that I appear to meet the
25
diagnostic criteria for marijuana abuse?
26
A: well, in my report, I talk about your history on page three of
27
marijuana use. You told me that you first smoked marijuana during
28
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.
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?
7
8
9
A: I actually haven't done the math.

Q: I didn't do the math, either, but I'm guessing from those brief
10
descriptions that conceivably could be, if your keeping a running total,
11
of say the number of times someone drank or something, you know.
12
That would be less than 30 times or something?
13
A: potentially, but the issue really is less the number of times
14
than whether it's maladaptive use. Whether they're it leads to negative
15
consequences, that kind of thing.
16
Q: okay, so someone could be, could fit within, I don't know if I
17
should call it a diagnosis? Perhaps, if you have a term that you think is
18
fitting for what you are saying here, then, by all means, please suggest
19
it. But from what you are saying for this, someone could meet that
20
criteria if they had had say drank alcohol, say, three times in their life?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A: That would be extremely unusual, but if someone continued to

drink, and only drank three times but each time they had an escalating
problems and they continued to drink despite that, I'd frankly, that's a
bizarre hypothetical, so I don't know what to do with it. I can say I have
never seen many my career but I suppose that might be theoretically
possible.
28
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.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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 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, once or twice a week? So, that could not add up to more than say,
thirty, really. So, you are basing a finding in your report that supports
marijuana abuse on information in your report that could not support a
finding that one had smoked marijuana, say, more than 30 times? So
from there, you are saying a hypothetical of having only drank three
times would be bizarre, but it's not that far from thirty, is it?
18
Ms. Kagan: objection, vague and ambiguous?
19
Judge McElroy: Sustained, because I think what you're confusing
20
is the marijuana with the alcohol. He didn't say alcohol three times. It
21
was marijuana. You were talking about marijuana and then all the
22
sudden you switched to alcohol, so why don't you focusing on what
23
behaviors your talking about.
24
25
26
27
28
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
between drinking 30 times and being termed an alcoholic versus
drinking marijuana 30 times. I'm just confused as to where you're going
with this.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mr. Coughlin: Because there is not a one for one ratioJudge McElroy: I'm gonna sustain the objection. Ask the question
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 theJudge 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 societyJudge McElroy: Well, I understand, but it is confusing and vague.
Q: Okay. Then, let's just stick with drinking. Someone could drink
15
30 times, say instead of talking about marijuana here we're talking
16
about drinking and you had only the information you based your
17
marijuana abuse assessment upon and that would be say drinking
18
roughly thirty times in one's life. Could you do such a thing when
19
talking about drinking or does that only really apply when it is
20
marijuana?
21
A: Well, I don't know that I am accepting the premise of 30, now
22
that it's about mathematics. I'm actually looking at what the numbers
23
are. Your early twenties, you're born in 76, so early twenties might be
24
starting in 97 or so between 97 and 2003, I would say that's about five or
25
six years and at 12 times a year that is 60 or 70 plus the amount of times
26
you would have smoked in Sacramento. So we're up a little more than
27
that. If it was only once a month and as you said it was approximately
28
once a month, and in my experience people who abuse substances often
tend to underestimate the amount that they use. So when someone says
they smoke marijuana approximately once a month and ultimately get
arrested for a DUI with that, clinically I will often that may be
accurate, but it may also be an under estimate.
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
10
11
12
13
probably really did? Would that be fair for a judge to do that?

Ms. Kagan: Objection, speculation, beyond this witness's personal
knowledge.
14
Judge McElroy: Well, it is also irrelevant, so its sustained.
15
Q: do you think is appropriate for you as a physician to be
16
multiplying what someone is self reporting to you, multiplying that
17
by some sort of quotient and coming up with what you believe is
18
accurate?
19
A: Well, I think the whole idea of mathematics is distracting
20
from the central point. So, I would not have gotten into a
21
quantification in the way that you asked me to do here.
22
Q: Okay, Dr., thanks, I am getting into that because it seemed like
23
all of the sudden we had this marijuana issue popping up. And none of
24
the exhibits or literature we have looked at before had brought that up,
25
so, at this late stage of the the game, we're coming up with a marijuana
26
diagnostic criteria for-
27
28
Ms. Kagan: Objection, is there a question here, Your Honor? That

also misstates the evidence.
Judge McElroy: Sustained. Why don't you ask a question?
Q: Dr. Tucker you mentioned that I'm not currently taking any
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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.
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
ibuprofen?
16
A: Correct.
17
Q: And do you remember when I stopped taking those pain
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
medications?
A: yes, it looks like the Adderall was discontinued in September
2006 and that you also took Clonidine for two years. I am not sure you
told me the exact date that that was discontinued. You also mentioned
that you were treated with for narcotics for your pain including Lortab
and Oxycontin-
25
Q: That is not at the same time, correct?
26
A: Right, I think you told me you switched from Lortab to
27
Oxycontin because of the acetaminophen issue there.
28
Q: I didn't mean to interrupt you. You were going into my
cessation of taking prescription narcotics. Do you recall a day for that
around the same time that Adderall was discontinued in or around
October or September of 2006?
A: I believe so. I don't see that right here in my report, but you
told me about issues with your father and the California LAP. You
decided the risks and problems associated with narcotic treatment were
that you would just continue with ibuprofen.
9
10
11
12
Q: When I cited the problems, do you recall having a discussion

about some of the bias and prejudice I felt I faced from various
individuals for taking these medications?
13
14
Judge McElroy: I am going to overrule the objection.
15
A: Yes.
16
17
Q: and, where some of those individuals with the LAP program?
18
A: Yes.
19
Q: Do you recall discussions concerning the LAP program that
20
spoke to my dissatisfaction with having a radiologist MD within the
21
LAP program giving his very strong opinion on my psychiatric
22
treatment as well as my pain management routine?
23
24
25
26

A: Yes.
27
28
Q: Do you believe a radiologist has the appropriate background
1
2
and training to function as both a psychiatrist and pain management
specialist?
6
7
A: No.
Q: What does a radiologist do?
A: The generally interpret imaging studies. Most commonly x-
10
rays.
11
12
13
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
14
15
for a diagnosis.
Q: Do you recall a discussion about the radiologist's statements to
16
17
me during my meeting with LAP, wherein the radiologist, in concert
18
with Dr. Otterness, the psychologist who was there that day and others
19
attending that, that they told me verbatim that we don't feel you are
20
sober because of these medications you are taking?
21
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and hearsay.
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Coughlin: It is not for the truth of the matter asserted, its just
toJudge McElroy: For his opinion, in terms of an overall diagnosis
of what your issues are. I am going to overrule it.
27
28
A: You are asking me if I remember you telling me about that?
Q: Telling me that you are not sober because you are taking these
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
medications, which are being prescribed to you?

A: I remember you telling me that.
Q: Do you have any concern with the fact that the LAP program is
making such bright line statements related to one's medical care and
prescription medications?
Judge McElroy: Okay, I guess the first question is, does he know
11
anything about the LAP program. So, I am going to sustain the
12
objection in terms of no foundation. You need to establish a foundation
13
as to what he knows about the LAP program?
14
15
16
17
Q: Dr. Tucker, are you familiar with the Bar's LAP program?
A: I would say I have some relatively superficial familiarity with
the program.
18
Q: Do you have any involvement with the program?
19
A: Not directly.
20
Q: Indirectly?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bar.
Mr. Coughlin: And, so, Your Honor, would you say that is
sufficient toJudge McElroy: What is your next question?
Mr. Coughlin: Well, to go back to the question that precipitated-
Judge McElroy: I don't even know what question you are referring
9
10
11
12
13
to. Just ask a Question.

Mr. Coughlin: OkayJudge McElroy: Without.
Mr. Coughlin: Assuming there is now enough foundation as to
14
your knowledge of the LAP program, would you say it is problematic
15
for, say, the radiologist to be telling someone that they are not sober
16
because of their use of medications that are being prescribed by a pain
17
management professional or specialist. Do you see that as problematic?
18
19
20
21
A: I think that is potentially problematic.
22
Q: Why?
23
A: It may not be within the expertise of the radiologist as you are
24
25
26
27
28
suggesting.
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
inappropriate approach.
Q: Thank you, Dr. Tucker. Is some of the fallout of someone going
with this approach include jeopardizing one's medical care and health?
8
9
Ms. Kagan: Objection, relevance and speculation.
10
Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection at this point.
11
Q: Could some of the fallout of this type of approach include one
12
not being one not having a great relationship with the LAP program.
13
14
15
16
17
Ms. Kagan: Same objection, Your Honor.

Judge McElroy: I am going to sustain the objection.
Q: So you are familiar that I have had some problem with the
LAP program?
18
A: You mentioned that you were terminated for non-compliance.
19
Q: Can you see where the approach characterized by our discussion
20
about the radiologist, can you see where that would affect one's
21
participation in the LAP program?
22
23
24
25
A: Yes, I can see how that would affect your feelings towards the
26
27
28
LAP program.
Q: Would this be especially true if one's health care and health
had been jeopardized by the LAP program's approach.
Ms. Kagan: Objection, lacks foundation, speculation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
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
15
16
Judge McElroy: You need to call the LAP people as your witnesses
and cross-examine them or put them on direct.
Mr. Coughlin: But they are not experts in the way that Dr. Tucker
17
18
19
is.
Judge McElroy: They are experts in the issue of whether you have
20
been terminated from LAP and that is an issue here, but Dr. Tucker
21
doesn't know, other than the fact that you have been terminated.
22
23
24
25
Mr. Coughlin: So it is whether or not, or is it why I was

terminated?
Judge McElroy: Why? Whether?
26
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, so is this going to why?
27
Judge McElroy: Don't argue with me. Ask the next question.
28
1
2
3
Q: So, your opinion, Dr. Tucker seems to be that I would benefit

from resuming my previous pain management and ADD treatments?
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
10
stimulants, such as Adderall, which you told me had benefited you in
11
the past.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q: Your Honor, I am just having a little bit of a problem

understanding why Dr. Tucker is here today. Perhaps, if I knew why
he was here I could direct my questions better to what they are
supposed to be directed to.
Judge McElroy: Okay. He conducted an examination of you to
18
determine whether you currently suffer from alcohol abuse and or
19
other drug abuse dependencies and your treatment and also he is here
20
to make, to address the issue of whether you have been rehabilitated
21
such that you can become a member of the State Bar of California.
22
Q: Thank you Your Honor. What is your opinion on that Dr.
23
Tucker with respect to whether I had been rehabilitated such that I
24
could become a member of the State Bar of California.
25
26
27
28
1
2
Mr. Coughlin: Because I recall you speaking to that somewhat

earlier but it would be helpful if I could get a clearer-
A: Well, it is interesting because I didn't understand that one of
my purposes was to make an actual determination about whether you
were fit to practice law in California-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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.
13
A: Okay, if you could restate your question then.
14
Q: Judge McElroy was just highlighting to me the reasons for you
15
being here today, and chief among them was, as I understood it, was to
16
assess whether I have been or can be rehabilitated such that I could or
17
should be admitted to the State Bar of California. So, if that is one of
18
the big reasons for you being here today, then I would be interested in
19
getting an answer from you to that question.
20
A: Well. My opinion in that regard would be that if you were felt
21
by the court to be appropriate for admission to the state to practice law,
22
I would feel that it is very important, I would not say that you are
23
fully rehabilitated at this point, and I would feel that it is very
24
important for you to have the kind of treatment that I described, and
25
the kind of monitoring that I described. I feel that all of these
26
problems, and I have listed five domains, it is the mood or depression,
27
the attention deficit disorder, the chronic pain, the character issues,
28
passive aggressive and oppositional defiant traits, as well as the
substance abuse. I think that all of these are still clinically significant
to an extent that they would impair your ability to practice law.
Whether they are so severe that you should be prohibited from
practicing law? I have to admit that I have not sat down and addressed
that, that would be something I would want to spend a little more time
on and confer with one of the attorneys here as to what are the actual
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
10
issues outstanding which are leading to substantial impairment in
11
your functioning and that you would benefit from that treatment and I
12
also think that those would interfere with your ability to practice law.
13
Q: Okay, now, you are compensated by the State Bar for your
14
15
16
report and testimony?

A: Yes.
17
Q: Could you tell me how much you are?
18
A: Its, uh, hhhhhhhhm.
19
20
21
22

Q: Dr. Tucker, in your review for this, for your testimony and for
23
your report, did you see the packet of AA signature sheets I had
24
submitted that is included in, I believe, Exhibit 3, pages 8 and on, no 12
25
and on?
26
27
A: As you described it. All that I reviewed for this report would
be the documents listed here. With the addition of, I think, the
28
transcript I was given the day we met, which was your second, part two
of your deposition her in California.
3
4
5
6
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?
A: That Order is item number 7 on the top of page 2.
Q: Did we discuss that Order when we met?
A: Yes.
Q: And, had you read it before then?
10
11
12
13
14
A: Yes.
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
15
actual specific language in the court order such that we needed to
16
actually get a copy of it and look at what was authorized. So, in terms of
17
the specific verbiage, we did need to get a copy of the report, but
18
generally speaking I had seen it and I understood what I was being
19
asked to do.
20
21
22
23
Q: But, in fact, when we did review it, there was some things in it
that surprised you?
A: Is that a question?
24
Q: Yeah. I am asking you to confirm if that is true.
25
A: I don't recall that.
26
27
Q: Do you recall being surprised that the court's order call for you
to submit a copy of your report to the applicant?
28
A: We might have discussed that. I actually don't have a specific
recollection of that, but I know that as part of my consent form I
indicate that I will not give a copy of the report to the applicant or
evaluee, and that the court order said, may have, may have contradicted
that, in which case I would have said, we will do whatever the court
order said. But, I don't remember the specific discussion about that.
7
8
9
Q: Can you turn to page 11 of Exhibit 3?

Ms. Kagan: There is no witness binder.
10
Judge McElroy: We need to get a witness binder.
11
Ms. Kagan: I have Exhibit 3 though. Let the record reflect I am
12
13
14
15
16
handing Dr. Tucker Exhibit 3.

Q: If you can just look at page 11 and on, glancing over themJudge McElroy: And what the record should reflect is that these
are your attendance at AA meetings?
17
Mr. Coughlin: Yes. These are part of the materials.
18
Judge McElroy: Okay, so we have that, page 11 through 33 would
19
be your attendance at AA meetings. The question is, would that change
20
his opinion?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
days, if I am not mistaken, but that was my recollection. I didn't put
that in the report. But, at least that was a requirement. But, I
28
understood from you that you had been to many AA meetings and had
regularly attended and continued to attend regularly. Or irregularly.
Q: Okay, now does someone who has gone to the trouble to gather
these lists, is that different from someone who has done these things or
just said they had done these things?
6
7
8
9
A: Well, then there is some documentation to support it.

Q: Okay, so would that affect your opinion? Would your opinion
be different if we had all the same other facts, but for the fact that one
10
guy got some 30 signatures pages dating back to 2003, and the other guy
11
just said yeah I went to a bunch of meetings? Does that enter into the
12
calculus that your report covers?
13
A: I think it is important and it does support your statement, but,
14
actually, I was not doubting you about that. I think I was giving you
15
the benefit of the doubt.
16
Q: You mentioned. From what I gathered from your answer to my
17
earlier question, it seemed as though you said you don't feel that I am
18
recovered yet, or fully recovered?
19
20
21
22
A: Correct.
Q: Do you feel that one needs to be fully recovered to be an
appropriate person to be admitted to the Bar.
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Coughlin: So, its that Dr. Tucker's opinion is not relevant?
Judge McElroy: No, I don't.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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.
10
Q: Okay, Dr. Tucker, do you feel that I currently suffer from
11
alcohol abuse issues such that- I don't know how I can phrase this
12
question? Such that I can be admitted to the Bar? Such that you would
13
have reservations giving whatever sort of input to the Bar that you are
14
able to, or that would be appropriate, such that would feel comfortable
15
in giving that input?
16
17
18
19
20
Ms. Kagan: Objection, ambiguous and relevance.

Judge McElroy: I am overruling it. If you can understand what
he is asking.
A: I did, and then I got distracted, but I think that I can respond.
21
I think that your diagnosis of alcohol and marijuana abuse, whether or
22
not you are currently or recently using, renders you vulnerable to the
23
use of those substances-
24
Mr. Coughlin: Sorry to interrupt you there, Dr. Tucker, but the
25
judge had said alcohol abuse, and now you are saying alcohol and
26
marijuana abuse-
27
28
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
pieces of paper from this Court, or the Bar, or the LAP program saying
the issue is alcohol abuse and then at other times the issue becomes
alcohol abuse and pain meds-
5
6
7
Judge McElroy: Its substance abuse.

Mr. Coughlin: Okay, but at first it said alcohol abuse-
Judge McElroy: Its substance abuse. Proceed.
A: I think that diagnosis renders you vulnerable to use of those
10
substances. And then, also, on page 3, I list the other psychiatric
11
disorders that contribute to your vulnerability to abuse of those
12
substances.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mr. Coughlin: Is that included Your Honor with alcohol abuse?

Judge McElroy: At this point it is, its an issue.
Mr. Coughlin: Is there anything that is not included with alcohol
abuse?
Judge McElroy: Mr. Coughlin, this is a moral character case. And
19
you have indicated that you have good moral character. The State Bar
20
has a right to introduce evidence that you do not have good moral
21
character. And, part of your moral character in terms of practicing is
22
an issue of substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, anything that would
23
prevent you in terms of practicing law. We have to look at the whole
24
picture here.
25
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, can you see where it is problematic to
26
me that under the auspices of looking at recovery from alcohol abuse,
27
we have made the issue anything? Because, I agreed to certain things
28
with the LAP program or with this Bar that were related to monitoring
recovery from alcohol abuse-
3
4
Judge McElroy: Well, if you had complied with the program, we

wouldn't even be here, okay?
Mr. Coughlin: I can not say that I agree with that.
6
7
Judge McElroy: So, and you have already opened up the issue.
Mr. Coughlin: If you are asking me if I agree with that, the
answer is emphatically no, I don't agree with your assessment of that.
10
Judge McElroy: Obviously, you don't.
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: No, I don't. But, one of the two of us has actually
gone through it.
Judge McElroy: Okay, but that is why you are here. And you
14
15
could have presented evidence in regard to that, and you haven't.
16
Mr. Coughlin: In regard to what?
17
Judge McElroy: To LAP. To why you didn't complete LAP. You
18
could have put that on as your case.
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Coughlin: I don't even know what- Have we even discussed

what I supposedly didn't complete in LAP? Have we ever enunciated
that?
Judge McElroy: At this point the court can not advise you. What
24
you needed to do in this case was get an attorney to present your case.
25
You didn't do that, you are representing yourself. And, I am supposed
26
to be a neutral judge in terms of what is going on and you are not
27
allowing me to do that because you don't have an attorney and you don't
28
know how to put on a case.
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
anywhere where you feel that the LAP's approach was problematic?
Mr. Coughlin: I don't understand what I can ask Dr. Tucker that
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
is relevant?
Judge McElroy: Well, first of all, it has been asked and answered
and I have a sense of what Dr. Tucker knows about the LAP program. I
don't think we are going to get anywhere here because he doesn't know
exactly what went on between you and LAP other than your selfreported.
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
22
Judge McElroy: His report.
23
Mr. Coughlin: For the purpose of?
24
Judge McElroy: For the purpose of establishing his report is
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?
28
Judge McElroy: Treatment recommendations.
Mr. Coughlin: But how does that affect what we are looking at
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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.
Mr. Coughlin: All right, then no more questions, Your Honor.
Thank you, Dr. Tucker.
10
Judge McElroy: Thank you. You may step down.
11
Ms. Kagan: Your Honor, can we take a two minute recess?
12
13
14
15
16

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
17
withdraw the following exhibit. All of Exhibit 73 which includes
18
exhibit 73A through N.
19
20
21
22
Judge McElroy: Okay, all of Exhibit 73 is withdrawn. So, 73

through 73N are withdrawn. 74 is admitted.
Court Personnel: 74? I don't have that in yet.
23
Judge McElroy: okay are you asking about 74 or what?
24
Ms. Kagan: actually I thought I had that admitted, 74.
25
26
Judge McElroy: I thought it was admitted but I could be wrong it

will be admitted now. 71 was admitted today and 71A.
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, when we admit 74 that means we're

admitting all this LAP stuff?
Judge McElroy: no.74 is just the your status as a patent agent.
Mr. Coughlin: ok I'm sorry.
Judge McElroy: so why don't we go over all the exhibits. They're a
bunch of exhibits.
Court Personnel: I have other exhibits that are not admitted.
Judge McElroy: exactly. Why don't, let me, I have 13 was that
10
11
12
13
withdrawn?
Ms. Kagan: I believe there was a question that I did quote into the
record, but I believe there was an objection.
14
Judge McElroy: ok so it's withdrawn?
15
Ms. Kagan: yeah just one moment.
16
Judge McElroy: sure.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?
Ms. Kagan: Withdrawn.
Judge McElroy: exhibit 16 is that withdrawn?
Ms. Kagan: yes.
26
Judge McElroy:Exhibit 18?
27
Ms. Kagan: withdrawn.
28
Judge McElroy: exhibit 22?
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 23?
3
4
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 26?
Judge McElroy: exhibit 27.
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: Exhibit 28.
11
12
13
14
15
Judge McElroy: exhibit 33?
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Mr. Coughlin: Your Honor, I would like to keep exhibit 52 in if
possible?
17
Judge McElroy: you're going to have to introduce it ok right now
18
she's withdrawn it. If you want it in your going to have to introduce it
19
yourself through your testimony. Exhibit 56?
20
21
22
23

Judge McElroy: 64?
Ms. Kagan: I believe that was admitted. That was the testimony
24
on last Thursday with Bill Stevens and Lynn Thingvold. I thought I
25
moved it into evidence and there is no objection.
26
27
28
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Judge McElroy: ok and Mr. Coughlin do you have any more

evidence?
Mr. Coughlin: well, could I introduce exhibit 52?
Judge McElroy: you can call yourself as a witness to rebut their
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?
Mr. Coughlin: 52.
Judge McElroy: Let me see 52, maybe there's no objection?
Ms. Kagan: My objection is based on relevance, Your Honor, if he
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.
Mr. Coughlin: And are we calling LAP people today?
Judge McElroy: No. you- that's not part of her case.
Mr. Coughlin: ok because you did say you were going to call Ms.
Poley at some point in the first three days of the trial.
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.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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.
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-
15
Judge McElroy: No, they were-
16
Mr. Coughlin: but they were they were paraded before the court
17
18
19
20
21
though right?
Judge McElroy: and I totally ignored them. They are not into
evidence.
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
Judge McElroy: I have ignored them. I mean, I have read them.

I've ignored them.
Mr. Coughlin: You read these?
Judge McElroy: yes.
3
4
5
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
state senator in Nevada whose work with the State Bar of Nevada for
20 years he's on their board and he-
10
11
12
Judge McElroy: That's true but you need to present them.

Mr. Coughlin: but you read them, right?
13
Judge McElroy: In order to be introduced as evidence.
14
Mr. Coughlin: but you've read these letters?
15
Judge McElroy: I've read the letters but I they cannot come into
16
my consideration in terms of the decision in this case. Only evidence
17
that's been admitted.
18
19
20
21
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
22
not doing what LAP wanted you to do but you have to call them in as
23
witnesses.
24
25
26
27
28
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,
that is the only thing the court knows at this point is you were
terminated from LAP. And that's why the Committee could not make a
recommendation to the Supreme Court of California that you be
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.
5
6
7
8
9
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.
10
Mr. Coughlin: and all they said so far was that-
11
Judge McElroy: you were terminated.
12
Mr. Coughlin: I was terminated?
13
14
Judge McElroy: you were terminated.
15
Mr. Coughlin: So, we don't know what that could be for?
16
Judge McElroy: Only the evidence that was introduced at the
17
trial is what I'm takin' into consideration. One, that you were
18
terminated. You did not-
19
Mr. Coughlin: And that's it? We don't know why we, don't know if
20
it's because I looked at them the wrong way or if I failed twenty drug
21
tests or what?
22
23
24
25
Judge McElroy: That is something you can argue. You can put it,
you can argue.
Mr. Coughlin: but we're not they're not showing anything to
26
support that, so at this point what's that worth? To the
27
determination?
28
Judge McElroy: it's something that goes into consideration.
Mr. Coughlin: but if we have no idea why I was terminated?
Judge McElroy: you were terminated from LAP, a violation of the
3
4
5
6
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?
Judge McElroy: No, it's your burden you-
Mr. Coughlin: But at this point they are rebutting my original
9
10
case, so it's their burden isn't it?

Judge McElroy: No. it's a moral character case. You have the
11
burden of presenting that you have good moral character. They rebut
12
that. They rebutted it, and now you if you have witnesses can rebut
13
their rebuttal.
14
15
16
17
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
18
decide. As a person representing yourself is have you made your case,
19
have they made their case.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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.
Mr. Coughlin: I am an attorney.
Judge McElroy: ok, but you know what they say when you
represent yourself.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
know? The State Bar's dragging this procedure out in concert with the
LAP program has made it so that I don't have an attorney anymore, but
I did have an attorney originally.
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.
By Mr. Coughlin
Mr. Coughlin: ok and part of that would be exhibit 52. so should I
deal with that now or-
19
Judge McElroy: You can deal with it if that's how you want to
20
deal with it. But we need to put yourself on as a witness. That's fine.
21
You understand that you're still under oath.
22
Mr. Coughlin: yes. I would like to testify with regard to a few
23
things. First thing I'd like to address is my supposed termination from
24
the LAP program. At this point, I don't know why I was terminated
25
from the LAP program. I was never given any anything telling me
26
why, other than any one sentence that was pretty vague, something
27
like you haven't fulfilled the terms of your participation plan. You're
28
terminated. Something like that. So I don't really know exactly why I
was terminated and if that's a big part of the decision you'll make in
this I would suggest it needs more light to be shed on it. If it doesn't
factor much into your decision at all, then fine, I don't need to spend a
lot of time on it.
I don't know quite why I was terminated by LAP. After such an
expansive and invasive entity has poked around in your life you might
you might wish to get some feedback as to why they chose to terminate
you after looking into every corner of your medical records, psychiatric
profile, asked you questions about your economic life, asked you
10
questions about your sex life, which I will note, Your Honor, in one of
11
our earlier telephone conversations you mentioned that as being
12
something that LAP program would not be able to do, whereupon
13
informed you that in fact their own questionnaire which is include it as
14
an exhibit in here does go into one's sex life.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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
didn't fulfill and give me an opportunity to fulfill it. This exhibit 52 is
not everything related to on the issue of my trying to fulfill the terms
of the participation plan. I have other emails. I have had phone
conversations and letters with Ms. Poley that indicate that if there's a
test I need to take I would appreciate her letting me know when and
where-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: No, well okay exhibit 52, at least speaks to that
issue though, Your Honor. I'll note on the second paragraph, its my
attorney at the time Mr. Fishkin is expressing to Ms. Poley that it's his
understanding that she wants me to take some sort of test. It
demonstrates that I don't know what test she's talking about or where
to get such a test done. And Ms. Poley- and I'll note the late date. This is
February 6th, of 2006. ThisMs. Kagan: Your Honor, objection. Referring to hearsay evidence
it's not even in evidence.
Judge McElroy: okay in terms of exhibit 52, I will say that it's not
14
hearsay, if it's not coming in for the truth of the matter, and it's
15
corroborative evidence that you might want to know what a test, what
16
test they want you take.
17
18
19
20
21
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
22
assert that this letter is dated February 6th, 2006. This abeyance period
23
ended I believe in February or this abeyance period, I believe started in
24
August of 06? That was the date of my original meeting with the LAP
25
program? So, August-September October November December January
26
February? So if Mr. Fishkin is having correspondences with Ms. Poley
27
in February of 06 about taking some test, then that would suggest and
28
and I would corroborate this with my own statements, that Ms. Polly
never even made any effort to get a test taken until nearly the end of
this six month abeyance period.
3
4
5
6
Judge McElroy: What I would do is direct your attention to

Exhibit 6, Mr. Coughlin to focus your direct examination.
Mr. Coughlin: that one page in exhibit 6?
Judge McElroy: Yes.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay.
Judge McElroy: as you indicated you were confused as to why you
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
were terminated from LAP.

Mr. Coughlin: to read from Exhibit 6: the LAP Evaluation
Committee has determined that you have not successfully complied
with their recommendations and appeared not to have gained insight
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
18
direct issue that you said you were going to be giving direct
19
examination about, your termination from LAP.
20
Mr. Coughlin: And that's what Im saying. I don't know why I was
21
terminated from LAP. I don't know that you could figure that out just
22
from this letter alone. And I believe this letter alone is all I got myself
23
after three years of dealing with the LAP program and spending a lot
24
of money to jump through different hoops that they required and
25
having my medical care criticized severely in the face of me providing
26
them with like 30 pages of AA sheets. Having a radiologist and a
27
psychologist question the care provided-
28
Judge McElroy: Okay, that's the basis. Im going to overrule the
1
2
objection. That's the basis for your termination from LAP. That's what
you're saying.
Mr. Coughlin: is what?
Judge McElroy: That you didn't like the report from a radiologist.
Mr. Coughlin: No, what I like and what I don't like I don't think
7
8
decides whether I am terminated.

Judge McElroy: Im just suggesting that you focus in on what you
9
10
said you were putting yourself on the stand for it in terms of direct
11
examination, your termination from LAP.
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: right, and Im saying I don't know why I was

terminated from LAP.
14
15
16
Judge McElroy: Okay, so, what's the next evidence you want to go
on-
17
Mr. Coughlin: So, I'm asking you to take a look at exhibit 6 and-
18
Judge McElroy: it's in evidence I looked at it.
19
Mr. Coughlin: and from exhibit 6, I still don't know why I was
20
21
22
23
terminated from LAP.

Judge McElroy: okay.
Mr. Coughlin: I will say that I don't believe I received anything
24
beyond exhibit 6 to tell me why I was terminated from LAP and so
25
it's kind of hard to address why I was terminated from LAP, you
26
know I mean?
27
Judge McElroy: yes.
28
Mr. Coughlin: because I haven't been told why. And then I'm
pointing to this exhibit 52 to show that the even if LAP wants to say it
was over some testing that they wanted done, we made efforts to, we
have written evidence here you know showing the we made efforts to
comply with them. I don't see any evidence from them pointing to the
contrary, so.
7
8
9
10
Judge McElroy: okay, so let's move on. Exhibit 52 was admitted.

Mr. Coughlin: I will state that at my meeting with LAP in
August they did in fact in concert say to me-
11
12
13
Mr. Coughlin: They did say to me that you're not sober because
14
you're taking these medications. I can tell you that can throw, can be
15
bad for your health.
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?
Judge McElroy: No, it's, I mean at this point it's self-serving,
22
number one, which is why it's part of the reason that it's hearsay is it's
23
not reliable testimony. But, I'm letting it in to show your state of mind.
24
This is what you believe, not for the truth.
25
Mr. Coughlin: so, anything that is self serving is unreliable?
26
27
28
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.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
in for the truth of the matter, it would be hearsay and it's not reliable.
That's why hearsay evidence is not allowed into evidence is because it's
not reliable.
Mr. Coughlin: But if someone is testifying that yeah this guy told
me he killed that person they are able to-
12
Judge McElroy: Its not reliable.
13
Mr. Coughlin: they wouldn't be able to testify about that?
14
15
Judge McElroy: I can't give you and evidence-
16
Mr. Coughlin: Yeah, this killer admitted this killing to me?
17
Judge McElroy: I'm am not giving an evidence lecture-
18
Mr. Coughlin: but I know that if a guy-
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Judge McElroy: I've made my ruling, okay, I'm letting it in to

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?
Judge McElroy: Its totally, its unreliable. Its unreliable.
Mr. Coughlin: because I'm saying it? Or would it be unreliable
because anybody is saying it?
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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
13
the truth about that is that they're jeopardizing people's health care by
14
being so brash and blunt with their approach.
15
16
17
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna let it in as that's what you thought.

Mr. Coughlin: thank you. And I'll take this opportunity at this
18
trial to say that my experiences with the LAP in that regard were very
19
bad for my well my physical health and my medical treatment was
20
compromised a great deal by LAP's approach. And I believe that
21
approach is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license, and
22
that as you earlier suggested, if I had just done what they said,
23
everything would have been all fine, is something like I cannot agree
24
with. Because you've got people who five minutes after meeting you are
25
going to practice outside their specialty and outside their profession in
26
fact in telling you what is acceptable medical care and what is not and
27
the consequences of that are that they're not going to give you a
28
favorable recommendation to work in a field that you've gone to school
for that you've taken out maximums of student loans for, that you
passed the bar exam for, you took the bar exam to why for, you know?
So 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,
10
these are complicated interactions between different medical problems.
11
If you can divorce it from some of the prejudice and some of the politics
12
that go along with things like substance abuse or chronic pain or ADD,
13
and look at it like something like a hemophiliac or diabetic or
14
something like that and if you had a diabetic or someone like that come
15
into the LAP and for them say we don't think you're sober because
16
you're taking insulin, so stop taking that insulin the results of that
17
could be pretty bad.
18
19
20
21

Judge McElroy: Im going to let it in.
Mr. Coughlin: that kind of brings me to another point, which is
22
that I can't think of another disease, and the AMA does characterized
23
both alcoholism and substance abuse as a disease? I can't think of any
24
other disease that receives the treatment that this one receives from
25
this bar. There's no other disease where the bar is able to do the things
26
it does to you that it does in the case of alcoholism or substance abuse.
27
They can't do that to you if your a hemophiliac, if you're a diabetic, if
28
you're a narcoleptic, if you're a lot of different things they can't. But
because there's some stigma to substance abuse or the treatment of
chronic pain, there's politics that surrounds that that enables the State
Bar to basically, and the LAP program acting in concert, to have
unlimited power, really.
6
7
8
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
9
10
not admitting into evidence these letters aren't really purporting to say
11
anything of truth, its just giving these peoples general yeah this guy's
12
you know someone who I could hire something like that. It's not saying
13
yeah we saw this guy do this at this date. So, I don't know why there's
14
this great need to to impeach these letters or to cross examine these
15
letters.
16
Judge McElroy: they're not going in.
17
Mr. Coughlin: Is there anything that you would suggest I speak
18
19
20
to?
Judge McElroy: I can't be your lawyer.
21
Mr. Coughlin: I'm not asking you to.
22
Judge McElroy: yes, you are.
23
Mr. Coughlin: no, I'm just asking you as a judge, is there anything
24
25
26
27
28
that you would prefer I address.

Judge McElroy: I think you need to focus on the purpose of this
hearing which is do you possess good moral character to be admitted as
a member of the bar and address the rebuttal that was given.
Mr. Coughlin: Okay, as I can see it I initially showed I my met my
burden to show I had good moral character which brought on the State
Bar's rebutting of that and the State Bar's rebutting of that consisted of
testimony directed to whether or not I was a patent agent or attorney-
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.
8
9
10
Mr. Coughlin: ok then I guess I probably don't have much to offer

Your Honor.
11
Judge McElroy: ok so are you resting at this point.
12
13
Judge McElroy: Okay, so what we'll do is close at this point and
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mr. Coughlin you need to go first in terms of your argument.

Mr. Coughlin: I'm just gonna have a real short argument Your
Honor I think you had an opportunity to see everything about this case
and I don't know that there's anything I could I could at this point that
would change what you've heard about this case.
Judge McElroy: well let me just kind of focus your attention. Good
21
moral character encompasses honesty, fairness, candor,
22
trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and
23
obedience to the laws of the state, and respect for the rights of others
24
and for the judicial process, and that's what you need to address. And
25
that means what you would have to do is look at what the State Bar has
26
presented in terms of rebutting those characteristics. And that is this
27
academic dishonesty investigation, your conduct at the University of
28
Nevada Las Vegas law school, your misrepresentations in terms of
employment history. Your termination from the law firm Schuering,
Zimmerman & Scully. Your U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and
your substance abuse. Material omissions in terms of what you didn't
report to the State Bar on page 12. to report all failures to appear, not
reported. Civil judgments and defaults, not reported. Financial
obligations not reported. Address history not reported. That's 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
10
Ive given you enough in terms of what you need to focus in on.
11
Mr. Coughlin: Your honor, I want to talk about those things first,
12
things showing that I don't have good character and then we've got the
13
list of things the State Bar presented to show that I don't have good
14
character. I want to talk about those first, the things showing that I
15
don't have good character. Because, really, in reality, we don't even get
16
into this list ever until we get into this list in this process. That is the
17
overwhelming majority of applicants really don't do anything to show
18
they don't have good character besides not have this list. And it's only
19
once you have a list of these things that you have to go above and
20
beyond that as I understand it, beyond just not having such a list. You
21
have to now become a community leader and have community service
22
activities and and be of the highest repute.
23
24
25
26
27
28
So to start with, this list, as I understand it, includes the issue

about whether I'm a patent attorney or agent. It seemed that you
pretty much through that issue out or said that it's not overwhelmingly
supportive of anything. So Im not really going to speak to that because
I think it's a non-issue at best. Unless you would suggest otherwise.
But, I'd rather move onto on my misstatements about my employment
history? Which as I understand it speaks to whether or not I worked at
the law library for six months or less or more and I would say that from
the testimony offered it's still not clear whether I did work there for
more or less than six months. We still haven't established that. And I'd
also say well, let's say I worked there for six months and one day. Is
that really such a strong point in the State Bar's case? It's clearly close
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
10
library. It's not law related. Im not researching anything for any
11
partners. I'm not even filing anything for any attorneys or any legal
12
entity. So I can not see denying someone a law license based on that.
13
Next, we have the academic dishonesty issue. Well I think it's pretty
14
clear that I both reported that correctly and was cleared of any
15
academic dishonesty. I think where the murkiness comes into this is
16
that UNLV's investigation seemed to change course midway. At first,
17
it's an academic dishonesty investigation and I don't recall ever being
18
told it was anything other than that. Then, somewhere along the line in
19
Mr. Burns's letter, it becomes, well no academic dishonesty took place,
20
we are clearing you of that but we're going to warn you about
21
something we're not really sure just don't do it again, whatever it is you
22
didn't do. So I think that's where the murkiness comes into this, but it's
23
clear Mr. Burn's letter says no academic dishonesty took place and it's
24
clear from my update to the State Bar that I reported that as such. So,
25
again I don't see what the State Bar is resting its case on with that
26
issue. So they are 0 for 3 as far as I can tell so far. And these first three
27
were the chief transgressions that the State Bar was leading with,
28
highlighting in their case and all three have fallen flat. So, the ones to
come after these three are of even lesser importance. With regard to not
fulfilling- I believe the language about the LAP program that State
Bar gave was that I hadn't gained insight according to the LAP and I
hadn't taken them up on their recommendations. It's always
interesting with the LAP, it's such a strange kind of reality. You get
words like recommendations, but they come with consequences that
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
10
program why say it's confidential why do you put that on?
11
Confidential lawyer assistance program? This is out in your hallway
12
out here. This program is confidential. Confidential? It says that
13
again and again and again. I don't see how its confidential. I have had
14
areas of my life trotted out before this court that otherwise I wouldn't
15
have ever imagined would happen. So to say it's confidential would
16
seem to support undermining the public's trust in the LAP program. I
17
think the LAP needs to be straight about what it's doing.
18
It's like I said in my Pre-Trial Statement. It is fostering an
19
atmosphere of secrecy and just a lot of shame. It's a shame based
20
approach I've noticed. I don't think it's conducive to recovery. Granted,
21
it's not easy. It's not an easy problem in our society, dealing with
22
recovery as it relates to professionals, specifically. So, Id have to
23
temper any criticism I have with that by saying, yes it's a hard
24
problem. Far be it for me to act like I know how to deal with it exactly.
25
But I can say that I feel as someone who's gone through this through
26
this process, that I have some ability to describe what my experience
27
was like.
28
Other issues that the State Bar brought up in their rebuttal
included my activities at the law school. I don't believe we've gotten
anything more than hearsay with regard to what other activities we're
talking about. They certainly didn't appear in the pretrial statement
and and I don't know that they formed any foundation in the State
Bar's original denial of the application. So I don't know how I can speak
to any other activities that they are mentioning. If they're referring to
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
10
requirement that we had, some questions about what its content needed
11
to have, I don't believe that became part of this case at all.
12
I'd note know when we're talking about whether or not I did what
13
the LAP program asked me to do, Your Honor? I'd note that my
14
experiences with the LAP program, to give you some context, is that I
15
provided them with several hundred signature pages showing I had
16
gone to AA, this three-page letter from an attorney AA sponsor I had,
17
this Kelly Testolin letter, included in exhibit 39 page 37 and a number
18
of other materials to demonstrate where my recovery was at. After
19
about a year-and-a-half of back and forth over whether or not the LAP
20
program can get my medical records it was decided that they can get my
21
medical records to monitor my recovery from alcohol abuse. They were
22
able to go and get whatever medical records they want. So, once they
23
got those, at my initial face-to-face meeting with LAP, that's where a
24
radiologist gave me his pain management and psychiatric opinion on
25
ADD and chronic pain treatment. That's also where the LAP program
26
gave me their treatment plan for me for the next six months, during
27
my evaluation.
28
Ms. Kagan: I object to this on the basis that it's not in evidence.
Judge McElroy: Im going to sustain the objection.
Mr. Coughlin: Right now I'm arguing with respect to-
3
4
5
Judge McElroy: But you only can argue what's in evidence.

Mr. Coughlin: The LAP program required that I attend a recovery
activity once a day for 180 days straight and gather proof of that. In
commenting on whether or not I took LAP up on their
recommendations or fulfilled the terms of the evaluation plan or
gained insight? Im showing that not only did I go to a recovery activity
10
once a day for a hundred and eighty days straight, that's six months, no
11
Sundays off, they want you to go to an AA meeting seven days a week
12
for six months despite the fact that you've already shown them several
13
hundred slips of AA meetings and activity in recovery-
14
Ms. Kagan: objection, Your Honor. Well, I think the information
15
we- what exhibit are we referring to? I need to see if it's in evidence? I
16
think it did come into evidence.
17
18
19
Mr. Coughlin: It is part of the LAP's Evaluation Plan.

Judge McElroy: No, I think it's part of another exhibit.
20
Ms. Kagan: The signatures Your Honor?
21
Judge McElroy: yes.
22
Ms. Kagan: that's part of exhibit 3.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: which was admitted into evidence.

Ms. Kagan: Right, but what I am objecting to specifically, is the
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
evaluation plan for the next six months you have to do all these things
and it's like three pages of stuff and I had to get it notarized and had to
do this several times.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Judge McElroy: ok.

Mr. Coughlin: and it says you need to get drug tested or be
available to be drug-tested 12 to 36 times a year and it's like this 14point Evaluation Plan, so if Im terminated from the LAP program, I
would imagine it would need to be for violating one of these 14 points?
And I'm addressing these 14 points by showing you not only have I
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?
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
23
Statement and I think that would be beneficial for addressing all that
24
issues you highlighted. I don't believe that the pretrial statement for
25
the bar is an exhibit?
26
27
28
Judge McElroy: it's not.

Mr. Coughlin: it's not. Oh, here it is.
1
2
Judge McElroy: I'm gonna give you another 10 minutes. You need
to wrap this up.
Mr. Coughlin: DMV stuff in Nevada? I'm not gonna speak to that.
Its not worth one of my 10 minutes. About speeding tickets? Whatever.
And I don't mean that whatever to say I don't respect the process and
that I didn't ultimately pay those tickets, I just mean I don't think it's
worth five years of interacting with the California Bar and this stage
of a trial in 2007 for failures to appear based on not having proof of
insurance from 2000-2001? I think that's kind of beneath this process.
10
Civil cases judgments and defaults related to the River Arms and Uni-
11
shippers? I don't have anything new I would add on that. I admitted to
12
certain things, I said I could have done some things better and I was
13
uncertain on certain things. I think that that is what it is. I have
14
already covered the law school employment. The fact that the State Bar
15
of California trying to say somehow I didn't report this Hale Lane
16
employment until it doesn't say when? But the State Bar certainly had
17
knowledge of my employment at Hale Lane as did the LAP program as
18
demonstrated by return addresses and letterheads throughout these
19
exhibits. To say it was not until May 14th, 2004 that applicant told us
20
about his business? Well, I don't think that business got off the ground
21
until sometime in early 04, so I certainly don't feel that that's too late
22
to report or to update this moral character application. Certainly,
23
sitting in this room now looking at it and seeing the court requirements
24
one can look at that and say yeah that's something he should have
25
done, but I would submit that a lot of this involvement with the LAP
26
program and a lot of the recovery based activities that were salient in
27
my life at that point might help mitigate in the transgression that is
28
not reporting something like having a business until a couple months
after you started a business.
I'm not going to comment on my address history. I don't see where
that deserves as much respect as is being given by the California bar
with regard to what they are resting their case on.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I am going to reiterate and earlier argument made with respect to

the State Bar's position that I somehow misled them about my
attendance at meetings in 2002 because I didn't tell them until 2004
because in letter I said I had only been a social drinker up to a point?
To me this is so obvious, but I don't know how obvious this is to people
who haven't lived through it. But, you certainly don't become a member
of AA overnight. And you don't become sure you are a member of AA
and 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
17
which speak to Mr. Coughlin having misled us by saying he was a
18
social drinker whereas later on he told us he had attended AA meetings
19
in 2002, I think just serves to show that the bar could use some
20
sensitivity training or overall exposure to recovery. Alcoholism and
21
substance abuse is a pretty big problem in our society. Alcoholism
22
alone, it's like the third biggest killer, or death due to alcoholism or
23
recovery from. So the State Bar's shame based approach with regard to
24
well you went to an AA meeting in 2002 and then here you said you
25
thought you were only a social drinker and then later on you're saying
26
no I- To me it's shameful.
27
28
The Patent and Trademark Office issue I've feel has been
addressed. Financial obligations? Yes, I had some things, still owe some
things? Those are things that need to be reported? Absolutely would I
like to pay back, yes. I would like to come back and hopefully Ill be
able to do so, but what can I say? The rule says you're supposed to report
those things. I didn't report those things until sometime in 07, so.
Now, with regard to misrepresentations related to my conviction
for a dry reckless I don't know that I misrepresented anything. The
Bar's claim that I made some misrepresentation is apparently based on
the arresting officer's report. Well, I guess that would mean I had
misrepresented something if in fact everything that's included in a
10
police report is taken as gospel and not as some buzz words that an
11
officer who has been celebrated five times by MADD? And given out
12
some 3,000 or 6,000 DUI's in a 11 year period? I don't know if there is
13
hardly that many days in an 11-year period, to give out that made DUI.
14
So to say that everything that's in his buzzword laden report is
15
somehow conclusive that anything I said that contradicts that is a
16
misrepresentation? I don't agree with at all. That's like saying
17
everything a prosecutor says is true and I think anybody who's
18
witnessed some of these trials would know that that's not true.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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 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
27
that. I reported it as there was a finding that no academic dishonesty
28
took place. And this is where Im confused because early on in this
academic dishonesty investigation, from my recollection, they make
you sign this letter saying yes I'm aware I'm being investigated for
academic dishonesty. So from there to getting a letter saying you're
cleared of academic dishonesty, but we also are kind of going to give
you a warning about what? I'm still not sure what they're warning me
about. Something about threatening somebody through an email or
something? Which Mr. Tratos clearly said he wasn't threatened or that
maybe he was threatened but not in that way? I don't know.
Candor? My refusal to answer questions? You might refuse to
10
answer questions to if someone was trying to hijack your medical care
11
five minutes after meeting you and dangling your career as a carrot or
12
wielding the not having a career as a hammer to get across their own
13
political agenda which is frankly laden with religiosity and a real old-
14
school hardline approach to the treatment of substance abuse as it
15
relates to chronic pain or ADD from people who don't even practice in
16
that field. Who want to- Its just shameful. It's like a bankruptcy judge
17
going in and wanting to do death penalty cases or something five
18
minutes after he decided he wanted to do that. So, with that, I would
19
say that I don't have anything further to add other than I appreciate
20
your listening to me Your Honor and the care that you gave to this case
21
because I have felt that my case has been heard and appreciate that.
22
23
24
Judge McElroy: Thank you.

Ms. Kagan: I'll make this brief. At the outset of this case the State
25
Bar stated that this the case was all about candor and cooperation and
26
that based on Mr. Coughlin's inability to be candid and failure to
27
cooperate he has demonstrated that he has not met his burden to prove
28
that he has the requisite good moral character for admission to the
State Bar. The State Bar has admitted evidence, unrebutted evidence of
many omissions from the original application, failures to update the
original application, as well as glaring misrepresentations regarding
the information that Mr. Coughlin did provide. Specifically with
respect to his arrest in 2001 after the movie theater incident, his DUI in
2003, his law school discipline, including the academic dishonesty
investigation, and the movement of the computer, as well as his
substance abuse and his termination from the Schuering law firm.
Based on all of these failures to provide to the State Bar, material
10
omissions or outright misrepresentations, the State Bar has proven that
11
Mr. Coughlin lacks the requisite character for admission to the State
12
Bar of California. Thank you.
13
14
Judge McElroy: Okay, do you have any rebuttal to that?
15
16
Judge McElroy: Okay, thank you. So, at this point the case is
17
18
19
20
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.
21
Mr. Coughlin: thank you.
22
(End)
23
24
25
26
27
28
Index:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
STATE BAR WITNESSES
DE
CE
RDE
Zachary Coughlin
13-124
Not perm. 306 -355 Not perm.
Sacramento Officer Jeff George
128-138
138-178
UNLV Professor Mark Tratos
178-205
210-238
UNLV Assoc. Dean Christine Smith
238-252
252-278
LVMPD Office Won Cho
278-283
283-296
Criminologist Michael Wayne Toms
297-301
301-305
CA Bar Investigator Bill Stephens
365-371
371-381
CA Bar Paralegal Lynn Thingvold
391-395
395-403
Dr. Douglas E. Tucker, MD
424-433
433-456
APPLICANT'S WITNESSES
Zachary Coughlin (prima facie case)
5-12
Zachary (rebuttal of Bar's rebuttal)
405-423
CA Bar Investigator Bill Stephens
382-390
423
465-475
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RCE
1
2
3
4
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE:
I, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, an interested party to this matter (much like the
CA Bar employee whose transcription the Decision relied on in Exhibit 12), do hereby certify:
That said transcript which appears hereinbefore was taken in For The Record audio
recordings received from the CA State Bar Court, and thereafter reduced to writing by means of
computer-assisted transcription as herein appears;That the foregoing transcript, consisting of
Pages 1 through 487 , inclusive, is a full, true and correct transcription of the official For The
Record audio recordings of said proceedings;
9
10
11
12

13
Applicant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10 10 16 Coughlin Appellate Brief 06-M-13755 CBX With Exhibit 1 489 Page Trial Transcript Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 10 16 Coughlin Appellate Brief 06-M-13755 CBX With Exhibit 1 489 Page Trial Transcript Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

al

Zachary Barker Coughlin

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

REVIEW DEPARTMENT - SAN FRANCISCO

Trial Transcript pages 453:25-454:5: "Mr. Coughlin: ...I

Bar that were related to monitoring recovery from alcohol

himself). Coughlin was permitted 37 pages worth of transcript to put

Judge McElroy ordered Applicant's rebuttal of the Bar's rebuttal be

I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR APPEAL:

After Applicant informed the Committee at an informal

the Committee required2 that the Applicant sign an Abeyance

information while his recovery from alcohol abuse be monitored by

The LAP then attempted to coerce applicant to extend his

Participation Plan8 (which went well beyond the scope of the

by the LAP. Applicant fulfilled all conditions of any agreements or

reckless driving conviction as a factor. The OCTC proceeded to trial

bombed accusations that its own Response to Applicant's Application

existence thereof whatsoever, Judge McElroy declared that the

applicant is going to have to furnish enough evidence that he has good

prima facie case12 that he possessed the requisite character for

States Patent Office had already conducted thorough moral character

disciplined Applicant in any way as to any matter, the misdemeanor

the committee in Exhibit 2, and 4) that applicant made material

evidence to support any of the above, and as to all substantial due

The Decision here strains credulity in purporting to find a

misrepresentation15 was made with respect to alleged inconsistencies

reasons for the termination of his employment at the Schuering law

Applicant's February 23, 2003 update16 to the CBX did not

Sacramento law firm contained therein to anyone in particular. 17

The Decision notes:

Discrepancies do not rise to the level of misrepresentations,

especially where the Decision admits Applicant's later updates 19

vantage point the rationale for leaving employment is to come. They

delay in getting a law license issue are commonly considered

Additionally, there is a due process deprivation here given the

to practice law on 12/18/02. Coughlin provided the Schuering firm a

2) Applicant Did Not Misrepresent His Relationship

The Decision further, incredibly, finds a lack of candor or

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to the Committee, where it notes:

yet fails to identify Applicant's Answer33 to Question 14.5 Chemical

Application to be a misrepresentation or omission. Applicant should

Regardless, there is no evidence in the record for just when Applicant

began to have a history of alcohol abuse, much less alcoholism

(much less marijuana39 abuse disorder), much less when, if ever,

violation of one's right against self incrimination with demanding the

not provide any testimony as to when such point occurred and no

thinking had undertaking with respect to his relationship to Twelve

2002, though indicating he had been subjected to a lifetime of Twelve

George admitted was necessary for one to be under the influence. 57

Prejudicial error, a lack of due process, and a lack of competent

evident. Judge McElroy prohibited Applicant a legitimate opportunity

but then to refuse to allow any legitimate cross-examination as to

George's testimony was implausible, inconsistent 63 and, at times,

whether he grew annoyed with the Applicant's pre-arrest questions

Likewise, was Officer George's testimony that, post-arrest, he offered a

thereafter of a PAS breath test using a preliminary alcohol

credible testimony by Officer George, and prevents a finding that

him to have misrepresented.71

purporting to have smelled freshly burnt marijuana then refuse

The Decision notes: "The committee presented clear and

application..." then inaccurately describes Applicant allegedly

citations. There was no evidence put on by the Bar to establish that

Kagan's arguing such are convictions in her Pre-Trial Statement

admitted to never having reported the small claims action and